inkinccorporation@gmail.com Karnataka High Court
Sri. K. Balajee @ Balaji Sha vs State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
R
Reserved on : 21.01.2026
Pronounced on : 30.01.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5539 OF 2024
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7416 OF 2023
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9272 OF 2023
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7032 OF 2024
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.5539 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI K. BALAJEE @ BALAJI SHA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
C/O KRISHNAMURTHY
R/AT NO.251
NATHAM MAIN ROAD
SIRUMALAI PIRIVU
ADIYANUTHU
DINDIGUL DISTRICT
TAMIL NADU - 624 003.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRATEEK CHANDRAMOULI, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI SMT.VIDYASHREE K.S., ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS CHANDRA LAYOUT
POLICE STATION
KENGERI GATE SUBDIVISON
BENGALURU - 560 040
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . VINAYAK KABADI
S/O RAMAKRISHNASA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT KASHINATH KRUPA
KABADI ROAD
BETAGERI, GADAG
KARNATAKA - 582 102.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SRI SUDHANVA D.S., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING
TH
CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE 4 ADDL. CMM COURT,
NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.14359/2024
(ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.219/2022) FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S
420, 120B, 406, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471, 34 OF IPC OF 1860 AND
SEC. 66-D OF I.T. ACT OF 2000.
3
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.7416 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SEBA JEEVAN SEBARATNAM
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O LATHISLAS SEBARATNAM
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF NO.153,
WINCHCOMBE ROAD,
CARSHALTON, SURREY
SM5 ISD
UNITED KINGDOM
CITIZEN OF DEUTSCH
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT
NO.511, GROUND FLOOR,
WEST WING, 7TH CROSS,
AMARAJYOTHI LAYOUT,
DOMLUR, BENGALURU – 560 071.
… PETITIONER
(BY SMT.SONA RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI JOSEPH ANILKUMAR A., ADVOCATE )AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS CHANDRA LAYOUT
POLICE STATION,
KENGERI GATE SUBDIVISION
BENGALURU.
2 . VINAYAK KABADI
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O RAMAKRISHNASA,
KASHINATH KRUPA
KABADI ROAD,
BETAGERI, GADAG,
KARNATAKA – 591 233.
… RESPONDENTS
4
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SRI SUDHANVA D.S., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING
CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE XLV ADDITIONAL C.M.M. COURT,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU IN CR.NO.219/2022 FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S.420, 120-B, 34 OF IPC 1860 AND SEC.66-D OF
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000 AT ANNEXURE B.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.9272 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
MR. VINAY KUMAR AGARWAL
S/O SHANKARLAL AGARWAL,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.B-29,
STERLING GRAND VILLA,
WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD,
SHEEGEHALLI, KADUGODI,
KANNAMANGALA,
BENGALURU – 560 067.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI KARIAPPA N.A., ADVOCATE)AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE,
BENGALURU CITY – 560 040.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
KENGERI SUB-DIVISION,
MYSORE ROAD
BENGALURU – 560 026.
5
R-1 AND R-2 ARE
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. MR. VINAYAK KABADI
S/O RAMAKRISHNASA,
R/AT KASHINATH KRUPA,
KABADI ROAD,
BETAGERI,
GADAG DISTRICT – 582 101.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1 and R-2;
SRI SUDHANVA D.S., ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.219/2022 OF
CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BENGALURU WHICH IS BEING
INVESTIGATED BY 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S
420 AND 120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 66-D OF
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND B
WHICH WAS PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL.C.M.M.,
BENGALURU AND NOW GIVEN TRANSFER TO XLV ADDL.C.M.M.,
BENGALURU AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.7032 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SMT. SILMIA @ SILMYA FATHIMA
W/O MUZIB ABDUL MAIN @ NIYAZ
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
NO.50/42
NARAYANA NABAGAN
PUTHUPETTAI, ANNASALAI
6CHENNAI – 600 002
TAMIL NADU.
… PETITIONER
(BY SMT.LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI MANJUNATHA A.C., ADVOCATE )AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION
BENGALURU – 560 040
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. SRI VINAYAK KABADI
S/O RAMAKRISHNASA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT KASHINATH KRUPA
KABADI ROAD
BETAGERI
GADAG – 582 102.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SRI SUDHANVA D.S., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.14359/2024 (CR.NO.219/2022), PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE LEARNED 4TH ACMM BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
120-B, 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND
SEC.66-D OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 REGISTERED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION VIDE
ANNEXURE A.
7
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21.01.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
Two of these petitions call in question proceedings in
C.C.No.14359 of 2024 and the other two call in question crime in
Crime No.219 of 2022. These petitions are preferred by different
accused challenging initiation of criminal case/crime registered for
offences punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468,
471, 120B, 34 of the IPC and Section 66D of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 (‘the Act’ for short) in Crl.P.Nos.5539 of 2024
and 7032 of 2024 and for offences punishable under Sections 120B,
420 and 34 of the IPC and Section 66D of the Act in Crl.P.Nos.7416
of 2023 and 9272 of 2023.
2. Criminal Petition No.5539 of 2024 is preferred by accused
No.4; Criminal Petition No.7032 of 2024 is preferred by accused
No.2; Criminal petition No.7416 of 2023 is preferred by accused
No.5; and Criminal Petition No.9272 of 2023 is preferred by
8accused No.3 all in Crime No.219 of 2022. In two criminal petitions
charge sheets are filed and in other two criminal petitions charge
sheets are yet to be filed owing to the fact that an interim order of
stay was operating. Since the issue arises out of a solitary
transaction, they are taken up together and considered by this
common order.
3. Facts adumbrated in Criminal Petition No.5539 of 2024,
which are almost common in other cases, are as follows:
3.1. The 2nd respondent is the complainant. It is the case of
the prosecution that the complainant generates interest in
establishing a sugar factory and was looking to raise loans for the
said purpose. In the month of October, 2017 the complainant is
said to have visited Celestial Tiles showroom at Indiranagar,
Bengaluru owned by Vinay Agarwal. Vinay Agarwal is said to have
arranged a meeting with Niyaz at Shangri La Hotel at
Vasanthnagar, Bengaluru. Niyaz and Vinay Agarwal are said to have
assured the complainant that they would arrange for a loan of
₹225/- crores. Niyaz and Vinay Agarwal are said to have asked the
9complainant to come to Chennai and meet State Bank of India
officials at Park Hyat Hotel in Chennai. Niyaz and his wife Silmia
introduced the complainant to one Sebaratnam Jeevan and
Krishnamurthy Balaji. All of them are said to have lured the
complainant that they would get ₹225/- crores from State Bank of
India, Corporate Finance Branch and demanded a commission of
7% of the loan amount for getting the loan. The complainant is said
to have agreed. Documents were transmitted to those accused. In
furtherance of the said transaction one e-mail is communicated to
the complainant and ₹49/- lakhs is said to have been credited in
the account of the complainant that was opened in State Bank of
India on 04-01-2018. Another e-mail transaction alert came from
the website of sbicf.co.in informing that ₹115/- crores have been
credited into the account of the complainant and again ₹110/-
crores was shown to have been credited to the account of the
complainant. The total available balance showed ₹225,49,00,000/-.
3.2. On the said balance being shown in the account of the
complainant, the complainant pays ₹7.15 crores which is 50% of
the commission amount. The complainant then goes and checks the
10
account in the State Bank of India physically. On coming to know
that the complainant had been duped out of a conspiracy, registers
a complaint on 16-07-2022. The complaint becomes a crime in
Crime No.219 of 2022. Two of the accused approached this Court
in two petitions, where a coordinate Bench had granted an interim
order of stay in favour of one of the accused and following that
another Court grants an interim order of stay. In two of the cases,
by the time they could approach this Court, the Police after
investigation filed charge sheet in C.C.No.14359 of 2024. Therefore,
all these cases are heard with the consent of parties finally.
4. Heard Sri Prateek Chandramouli, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5539 of 2024; Smt. Sona
Rajkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in
Crl.P.No.7416 of 2023; Sri Hashmath Pasha, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.9272 of 2023; and
Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner in Crl.P.No.7032 of 2024; Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned
State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri D.S.
11
Sudhanva, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/3 in all
the cases.
5. The learned senior counsel Sri Hashmath Pasha appearing
in Criminal Petition No.9272 of 2023 and learned senior counsel
Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar appearing in Criminal Petition No.7032 of
2024 along with other counsel would vehemently contend that the
issue is purely civil in nature. The crime is registered for recovery
of money of ₹7.15 crores. Therefore, it is a case where criminal law
is set into motion for the purpose of recovery of money. Plethora of
judgments of the Apex Court hold that it is impermissible in law. All
the learned counsel, would in unison, project that the transaction is
said to have been done on 12-02-2018 and the complaint is
registered only on 16-07-2022. Therefore, there is delay of 4 years
in registering the crime. The learned counsel would submit that
each of the petitioners have no role to play in the transaction and
would allege that the offences are said to have taken place in
Chennai and the crime is registered in Bengaluru. On all the
aforesaid scores the learned counsel would seek quashment of
proceedings, contending that a pure business transaction has
12
become the subject matter of crime, and if this is permitted, it
would become an abuse of the process of law.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
Sri B.N. Jagadeesha takes this Court through the charge sheet so
filed against two accused and the charge sheet material that was
available against the other two. According to the learned Additional
State Public Prosecutor, the charge sheet materials or the charge
sheets would clearly indicate that these accused have created a
fake SBI website, generated one time password to the mobile of the
complainant to make him believe that his account has been credited
with ₹227/- crores, the loan that he needed to establish a sugar
factory. Believing the accused, the complainant transferred ₹7.15
crores to the account of the accused, which is the only transfer in
the case at hand. Creation of fake website and transfer of money is
a product of luring the complainant by the accused. It is the case of
the State that in such cases if this Court would interfere, it would
become a travesty of justice. He would seek dismissal of these
petitions.
13
7. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/
complainant would toe the lines of the learned Additional State
Public Prosecutor in contending that the complainant has lost ₹7.15
crores. The demand was ₹15/- crores, 50% of which was paid and
that is the only real transaction in the case at hand and everything
else is fake. He would also seek dismissal of these petitions,
contending that it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full-
blown trial.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The way the
accused met the complainant and took the complainant all over is a
matter of record. The entire issue gets triggered from registration
of the complaint. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to notice the
complaint. The complaint dated 16-07-2022 reads as follows:
“From,
Vinayak Kabadi,
S/o. Ramakrishnasa,
14Kashinath Krupa, Kabadi Road,
Betageri, Gadag,
Karnataka – 582 102,
Ph. No. 9901772344.
Age:41, Hindu. S.S.K
To,
The Station House Officer,
Chandra Layout Police Station,
Bengaluru.
Respected Sir,
Subject: Complaint against Muzib Abdul Mian @ Niyaz,
Silmia, Vinay Agarwal, Krishnamurthy Sha Balaji,
Sebaratnam Jeevan and others for having cheated me by
taking 7.15 crores Rupees for getting Rs.225 crores loan,
defaulting, and not refunding.
With reference to above I am a resident of Betageri and I am a
businessman. I, and my brother, are individually and jointly
running various businesses such as Daya Wines, Welcome
Enterprises, Narayansa and co. etc. I have a friend by name
Gururaj Annigeri through whom Vinay Agarwal, who runs a
luxury tile shop in Indiranagar Extension of Bengaluru, came in
contact with me.
Since I was interested in establishing a Sugar Factory, I, was
looking for raising loans for the purpose. One day in the month
of October 2017 I had visited the “Celestial” Tiles showroom,
100ft. road, Indiranagar of Vinay Agarwal. Vinay Agarwal who
had already come to know about my intention to raise funds,
offered to introduce some persons who would get loans on
Commission basis.
During the same month, Vinay Agarwal, arranged a meeting
with Niyaz at Shangri La Hotel at Vasant Nagar, Bengaluru
wherein Niyaz and Vinay Agarwal offered to get Rs 225 Crores
loan. In the month of October 2017, Niyaz and Vinay Agarwal
asked me to come to Chennai to meet State Bank of India
Officials and I went to Park Hyat Hotel in Chennai where Niyaz
and his wife Silmia introduced me to Sebaratnam Jeevan and
15Krishnamurthy Balaji. All of them promised, to get loan of Rs
225 crores from State Bank Of India, Corporate Finance Branch.
They demanded me to pay 7% commission on the loan amount
for getting the loan to which I agreed. They asked me to get all
the documents. Thereafter, they took my signature on an
agreement prepared in the name of M/s Rolta India Ltd assuring
to get the loan from SBI. They asked me to open an online
account in SBI Corporate Finance. After a lot of paper work and
after taking my signature on a number of papers they carried
out a bogus KYC. Thereafter, I was allotted Account
No.60971523983 which was communicated through email.
On 03/01/2018, I received an email alert
from www.sbicf.co.in informing that Rs. 49,00,000/- has
been credited into my account in SBI. On 04/01/2018 I-
received another email transaction alert from the same
website of sbicf.co.in informing that Rs 1,15,00,00,000/-
credited to my account to my account from the account of
Rolta, India Ltd. Yet again the same day in the afternoon
another Rs 1,10,00,00,000/- was shown as credited in to
my account and the total available balance was shown as
Rs.2,25,49,00,000/-. By posing as honest and capable
and respectable people in society they demanded me to
pay the commission. Accordingly, we have paid them a
total sum of Rs 7.15 crores towards 50% of the
commission, on various dates. Out of the Total amount
paid the amount of Rs. 95 Lakhs have been through Bank
Accounts of Well Come Enterprises, Daya Wines and M/s
K. Narayanasa & Co. on 12/02/2018. The cash amount
has been paid to the Muzib Abdul Mian @ Niyaz, Silmia,
Vinay Agarwal, Krishnamurthy Sha Balaji, Sebaratnam
Jeevan and others at Bengaluru near KFC, Chandra
Layout.
As per the website www.sbicf.co.inmoney was shown as
transferred to my account I was unable to withdraw the
same because the website was not active. when I
vehemently demanded they sent whatsapp message
offering to refund the commission. They also told me that
there was some technical problem with SBI and called me
to Chennai. Further assured that, the technical problems
would be resolved and soon I would able to withdraw the
credited money. In spite of the patient waiting, I could
16not get the money which purported to have been credited
to my said Account. Then suspecting the bonafide of
these persons I started vehemently demanding to enable
me to withdraw the money or return the Commission
money received, then they said that there is some
problem with SBI and hence they would get the loan from
ICICI bank instead of SBI. On 23/03/2018, the above
persons called me to Chennai and sent me a whatsapp
message of a DD for a sum of Rs 49,00,00,000/- drawn
on ICICI bank, in favor of my company but they did not
hand over the same. Later, Vinay Agarwal sent message
saying “Niyaz Bhai Gaya”.
Since then, all of the above persons have become
incommunicado. Then I became suspicious and on
verification I found that the above persons have no
connection with Rolta India Ltd or SBI. They never
intended to get me the loan. They have created bogus
agreements in the name of the famous Rolta India Ltd. To
make me believe that they are genuine persons and to
deceive me to pay money to them, they have created fake
website in the name of SBI CF with the help of hacker
Sebaratnam Jeevan. Made me open a non-existent
account, and just to convince me that they are genuine
they created fake mails showing that money has been
transferred to my account. Later on, they have shown me
a forged copy of the DD of ICICI bank for a sum of Rs.
49,00,00,000/- (Rs Forty Nine Crores only) in favour of
my company.
By these affairs it is clear that, Muzib Abdul Mian @ Niyaz,
Silmia, Vinay Agarwal, Krishnamurthy Sha Balaji, Sebaratnam
Jeevan and others had the intention to cheat me since beginning
and put me under great unlaw full loss: Thus, all of them have
conspired and cheated me of Rs. 7.15 crores. When I was in
Chandra Layout bus depo in Bengaluru, I telephoned Silmia to
find out the whereabouts of Niyaz. She abused me and told me
that since I am vehemently pursuing the matter they have
decided to eliminate me.
Up to, 23/03/2020, when I was called to Chennai, I did not
realize I was being cheated. Only after that I became
suspicious. It took me a lot of time to find out that the
17
agreement, website, DD’s etc are all bogus. The Covid-19 onset
created further complications. Hence, I was not able to lodge
the complainant earlier.
I request you to take action against the above persons and get
back my money. I request also to, protect me from them since
they have threatened to finish me off.
Bengaluru
Date:16/07/2022 Thanking you Sd/-"
(Emphasis added)
The complaint itself is a document of striking detail. It
narrates, step by step, how a fictious banking edifice was
erected to lull the complainant into a false sense of security;
how a counterfeit digital infrastructure masquerading, as the
State Bank of India was employed; and how the complainant
was induced to part with enormous sums of money. The
accused have created a website www.sbicf.co.in which was never in
existence and generated one time password (OTP) to the mobile of
the complainant or even whatsapp messages. At one point in time,
the complainant is said to have got a message from SBI that a sum
of ₹225/- crores totally is credited to the account of the
complainant. Sebaratnam Jeevan, accused No.5 and petitioner in
Criminal Petition No.7416 of 2023 is said to be the brain behind
hacking in the episode. He has created fake mails showing that
18
money has been transferred into the account of the complainant.
The facts obtaining in the case at hand clearly indicate a large scale
cyber fraud.
10. It is the case of the complainant that upto 2020 he was
called to Chennai for discussions about the remaining ₹8/- crores
commission that had to be paid and it is when the accused stopped
picking up calls of the complainant, he gets suspicion and digs out
the entire issue. The complainant has explained that after March
2020 Covid-19 had engulfed the nation and no complaint could be
registered immediately and, therefore, registers the crime on
16-07-2022 when nothing came about. The Police conduct
investigation and file a detailed charge sheet against the accused.
The summary of the charge sheet runs into 10 pages. It reads as
follows:
“17. ೇ ನ ಸಂ ಪ ಾ ಾಂಶ
ಈ ೋ ಾ ೋಪ ಾ ಪ ಯ ನಮೂ ರುವ #$ಾ%ದು ಾರ ಾದ ಾ -1 ()ೕ *+ಾಯಕ ಕ-ಾ.
ರವರು ಗದಗ 01ೆಯ -ೆಟ3ೇ45ಾ $ಾ6ರು7ಾ ೆ. ತಮ9 ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸದಸ;ರ <ಾಲು ಾ4 ೆಯ
ೇ4 ೊಂಡು ಹಲ5ಾರು 4ೕ@ಯ ವ;ವAಾರಗBಾದ $ಾ 5ೈDE 5ೆಲFG ಎಂಟI <ೆJ ೆK,
+ಾ ಾಯಣ ಾ ಅಂO ಕಂ ಇ7ಾ;Q ವ;ವAಾರ Rಾ. ೊಂ.ರು7ಾ ೆ. ಸದ4 ಾ -1 ರವರು ತಮ9
ಸAೋದರ ಾ -8 ()ೕ ಮಂಜು+ಾಥ ಾಮಕೃಷX ಾ ಕ-ಾ. ರವ ೊಂ 3ೆ ೇ4 ೊಂಡು ಸಕF ೆ
19Yಾ;Z 4 7ೆ ೆಯುವ ಸಲು5ಾ6 ಾಲ ಾF6 ಹಲವ[ ಕ\ೆಗಳ *^ಾ4ಸು@ದ_ ಸಮಯದ 2017+ೇ
ಅ ೊ ೕಬI @ಂಗಳ ಾ -1 ರವರ -ಾಲ; ೆbೕcತ ಾದ ಾ -9 ()ೕ ಗುರು ಾe ಅfX3ೇ4 ರವರ ಬg
Aೇg ೊಂ.ದು_ ಅfX3ೇ4ರವ43ೆ ಪ4ಚಯಸ9 ಾದ ಮತು -ೆಂಗಳi4ನ ೊಡjಮಟ ದ ೆ1ೆK
kೈlE mೆnೕರೂಂ ಇಟು ೊಂ.ರುವ ಆ ೋ# ಎ-3 *ನq ಅಗ5ಾ%l ರವರನುb -ೆಂಗಳi4ನ
ಇಂ ಾನಗರದ ರುವ ೆ1ೆK kೈlE 100 ಅ. ರ ೆ, ಇಂ ಾನಗರ, -ೆಂಗಳiರು ಇ rೇ
Rಾ.ದು_, ಎ-3 *ನq ಅಗ5ಾ%l ರವರು, ತಮ3ೆ ಪ4ಚಯ*ರುವ ವ;sಗಳನುb
ಪ4ಚt ೊಡು7ೇ+ೆ, ಮತು -ೇ ಾ6ರುವ 1ೋD ೊ.ಸು7ೇ+ೆ ಆದ ೆ ಕuಷD ೊಡ-ೇ ೆಂದು
Aೇgರು7ಾ ೆ. ಅದ ೆF ಾ -1, ಾ -8 ಮತು ಾ -9 ರವರು ಒ#w ೊಂ.ರು7ಾ ೆ.
2) 2017+ೇ ನ5ೆಂಬI @ಂಗgನ , ಎ-3 *ನq ಅಗ5ಾ%l ರವರು, ಾ -10 ಸತ;ಪ) ಾy ೆಕೂ;4
Rಾ;+ೇಜI ಆ6ರುವ -ೆಂಗಳi4ನ ವಸಂತನಗರದ ರುವ mಾಂ6)1ಾ Aೋkೇl ನ , ಾ -1, 8 &
10 ರವರನುb ಕ ೆ ೊಂಡು ಎ-1 ಮು0ೕ{ @ }$ಾe ಈತನನುb rೇ Rಾ. ದು_, ಾ -1 & 8
ರವ43ೆ -ೇ ಾ6ರುವ ಾಲದ ಬ3ೆ~ Rಾತ+ಾ.ರು7ಾ ೆ. ಆಗ ಎ-1 ಮತು ಎ-3 ರವರು ಭರವ ೆ
ೊ ದು_, ರೂ.225 ೋ ಹಣವನುb ಎK.•.ಐ. -ಾ;ಂZ }ಂದ ಾಲ5ಾ6 ೊ.ಸ1ಾಗುವ[ದು.
ಅದ ಾF6 ಚ+ೆbೖ3ೆ ಬಂದ ೆ -ಾ;ಂZ ಅQ ಾ4ಗಳನುb rೇ Rಾ.ಸ1ಾಗುವ[ದು ಎಂದು Aೇgರು7ಾ ೆ.
3) ೆಲವ[ ನಗಳ ನಂತರ ಎ-1 ಮತು ಎ3 ರವರು Aೇgದಂ7ೆ ಾ -1, 8 & 9 ರವರು ಚ+ೆbೖ3ೆ Aೋ6ದು_,
ಸದ4 ಆ ೋ#ಗಳƒ ಚ+ೆbೖನ ಾಜಭವನ ಬgtರುವ ಾ -11 ()ೕ 7ಾಮರ ೆಲ„D ರವರು ೆಕೂ;4
Rಾ;+ೇಜI ಆ6ರುವ <ಾZ% ಹ$ಾ… Aೋkೇl 3ೆ ಕ ೆದು ೊಂಡು Aೋ6ದು_, ಅ ಎ-1 ಮತು ಎ-3
ರವ ೊಂ 3ೆ ಎ-1 ರವರ ಪ@b 9$ಾ Yಾ@Rಾ ಇದು_, ಅವ ೊಂ 3ೆ ಇದ_ ಎ-4 ೆ -ಾ1ಾ0ೕ ಮತು
ಎ-5 ೇಬ0ೕವD ೇಬರತbG ರವರನುb ಾ -1, 8 & 9 ರವ43ೆ ಪ4ಚಯRಾ. ೊಟ ರು. ಅ , ಎ-1
4ಂದ ಎ-5 ರವರು ಾ -1, 8 & 9 .ರವ43ೆ ಭರವ ೆ ಮತು ನಂ• ೆ }ೕ.ದು_, ರೂ. 225 ೋ
ಾಲವನುb ಎK.•.ಐ. ಾ‡ೕ% ೇˆ Yೈ+ಾDE -ಾ)ಂ‰ }ಂದ }ೕಡ1ಾಗುವ[ದು, ಅದ ಾF6 mೇ.7 %
ಕuಷD }ೕಡ-ೇಕು ಎಂದು Aೇgದರು. ನಂತರ ಅ ‹ೕ ಎ-1 4ಂದ ಎ-5 ವ ೆ6ನ ಆ ೋ#ಗಳƒ ಾ –
1 & 8 ರವರ ಕ\ೆtಂಕ ೆ.5ೈ. . ಾಖ1ೆ ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂ.ದು_, ಾಲ ಮಂಜೂರು ಸಂಬಂಧ5ೆಂದು ೆಲವ[
ಾಖ1ೆಗg3ೆ ಸc Rಾ. ೊಂಡರು. ನಂತರ ೋಲ ಇಂ.$ಾ ಎಂಬುವ Aೆಸ4ನ ಆ ೋ#ಗಳƒ
ಾ -1 & 8 ರವರ ಸಂಗG +ಾŽ ಶುಗK% ಎಂಬುವ ಕಂಪ}•ಂ 3ೆ ಅ6)ೕ•ಂˆ Rಾ. ೊಂ.ದು_,
ಾ -8 ರವ4ಂದ ಸc Rಾ. ೊಂ.ರು7ಾ ೆ. ಆD 1ೈD ‘ಾ7ೆ 7ೆ ೆಯ-ೇ ೆಂದು Aೇg *ವರ
ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂಡು, ಸcಗಳನುb ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂಡು, ‘ಾ7ೆ ನಂ. 60971523983 ಅನುb }ೕ.ದು_, ಇ-•ೕl
ಮೂಲಕ Rಾತ) ವ;ವAಾರ5ಾಗುತ ೆಂದು Aೇgರು7ಾ ೆ.
20
4) +ಾಂಕ:02-01-2018 ರಂದು ಾ -1 & 8 ರವರ ಸಂಗG +ಾŽ ಶುಗK% Aೆಸ4ನ e-mail ID
mಾ’ೆ, [email protected] 3ೆ SBI Premium CF AC Aೆಸ4ನ
[email protected] , }ಂದ Rಾc@ ಬಂ ದು_, ಆ+ೈD ‘ಾ7ೆ ನಂ.60971523983
ಜನ ೇˆ ಆ6ರುವ ಬ3ೆ~ ಮತು ಮುಂ ನ ಎ1ಾ ವ;ವAಾರ ಾF6 3ಾ)ಹಕರ ಐ. ನಂ.83982541
}ೕಡ1ಾ6 ೆ, Aೆ›œನ Rಾc@3ಾ6 #)ೕuಯಂ ಎ• mಾ’ೆ ž ೋಜುŸI ನಮZ ಸಂಪs%ಸಬಹುದು
ಎಂದು ಇ7ಾ;Q$ಾ6 Rಾc@ ಬಂ ರುತ ೆ. ಇ ೇ ನ ಮ7ೊಂದು ಇ-•ೕl ಬಂ ದು_, ಓನ(%¡
ಅಥ ೈK 3ಾ6 OTP 893816 ಎಂದು ಇ7ಾ;Q$ಾ6 ಬಂ ರುತ ೆ. ಇ ೇ ನ ಮ7ೊಂದು ಇ-•ೕl
ಬಂ ದು_, ಇಂಟ+ೆ%ˆ -ಾ;ಂZ ಆs ¥ ಆ6 ೆ ಎಂದು ಇ7ಾ;Q$ಾ6 Rಾc@ ಬಂ ರುತ ೆ.
5) +ಾಂಕ: 03-01-2018 ರಂದು ಸದ4 [email protected]
}ಂದ1ೇ [email protected] 3ೆ mail ಬಂ ದು_, ಅ ೌಂˆ 1ಾ6D
ಆ6 ೆ‹ಂದು ಇ7ಾ;Q$ಾ6 Rಾc@ ಬಂ ರುತ ೆ. ಇ ೇ ನ ಮ7ೊಂದು mail ಬಂ ದು_, ‘Dear
customer your a/c xxxx83 has been credited with INR 49,00,000.00 on
03/01/20218’ ಎಂದು ಇ7ಾ; $ಾ6 Rಾc@ಬಂ ರುತ ೆ.
6) +ಾಂಕ: 04-01-2018 ರಂದು ಸದ4 [email protected]
}ಂದ1ೇ [email protected] 3ೆ mail ಬಂ ದು_, ‘Dear customer
your a/c xxxx83 has been credited with INR 1,15,00,00,000.00 on
04/01/20218. The available balance is INR Rs. 1,15,49,00,000.00’
ಎಂದು ಇ7ಾ; $ಾ6 Rಾc@ ಬಂ ರುತ ೆ +ಾಂಕ: 04-01-2018 ರಂ ೇ
ಸದ4 [email protected] }ಂದ1ೇ [email protected] 3ೆ mail
ಬಂ ದು_, ‘Dear customer your a/c xxxx83 has been credited with INR
1,10,00,00,000.00 on 04/01/20218. The available balance is INR Rs.
2,25,49,00,000.00’ ಎಂದು ಇ7ಾ; $ಾ6 Rಾc@ ಬಂ ರುತ ೆ.
7) ಎ-1 4ಂದ ಎ-5 ವ ೆ6ನ ಆ ೋ#ಗಳƒ ಭರವ ೆ }ೕ.ದಂ7ೆ #$ಾ%Q ಾ -1 & 8 ರವರ ಸಂಗG
+ಾŽ ಶುಗK% ಕಂಪ}ಯ Aೆಸ4ನ ಆ+ೈD ‘ಾ7ೆ3ೆ (ಆ ೋ#ಗBೇ ಎK.•.ಐ. Aೆಸ4ನ 5ೆ-ೆEೖಟb
7ೆ ೆದು ೊ ರುವ ‘ಾ7ೆ) ಒkಾ ೆ ರೂ. 2,25,49,00,000.00 (ಇನೂbರ ಇಪw7ೆ¨ದು ೋ
ನಲವ7ೊಂಬತು ಲ©ಗಳƒ) ಾಲ ಮಂಜೂರು Rಾ.ದು_, ಈ ªದ1ೇ Rಾತುಕ7ೆ$ಾ6ರುವಂ7ೆ mೇ.50
ರಷು ಕuಷD }ೕ.ದ ೆ Rಾತ) ಾಲದ ಹಣ \ಾ) Rಾಡಲು ಅನುಮ@ಸ1ಾಗುವ[ದು ಎಂದು Aೇg
ಕuೕಷD ೇgರು7ಾ ೆ. ಅದರಂ7ೆ ಾ -1 & 8 ರವರು ಈ ೆಳ3ೆ ನಮೂ ರುವ 4ೕ@ಯ , ಎ-1
4ಂದ ಎ-5 ರವ43ೆ ಆರಂಭ ಂದ ಾಲ ಮಂಜೂ ಾದ ನಂತರ 2018+ೇ Yೆಬು)ವ4.. ಅಂತ;ದವ ೆಗೂ
21
ಹಂತ ಹಂತ5ಾ6 ಒಟು ರೂ. 7.15 ೋ (mೇ 50 ರಷು ಕuೕಷD) }ೕ.ರು7ಾ ೆ. ಸದ4 ಬಹು7ೇಕ
ಸಮಯದ ಾ -9 ರವರು ಾ 1 & 8 ರವ ೊಂ 3ೆ Aಾಜ4ದ_ರು.
1. +ಾಂಕ:13-12-2027 ರಂದು -ೆಂಗಳi4ನ mಾಂ6)ೕ1ಾ Aೊkೇಲb ಎ-1 ಮತು ಎ-3 ರವ43ೆ ರೂ.
50 ಲ© ನಗದು }ೕ.ರುತ ೆ.
2. +ಾಂಕ: 20-12-2017 ರಂದು -ೆಂಗಳi4ನ ಚಂದ)1ೇಔˆ, 60 ಅ. ರ ೆಯ ರುವ ೆ.ಎ•. .
ಬg ಎ-1 & ಎ-3 ರವ43ೆ-ರೂ. 50 ಲ© ನಗದು }ೕ.ರುತ ೆ.
3. +ಾಂಕ: 23-12-2017 ರಂದು -ೆಂಗಳi4ನ ಇಂ ಾನಗರದ ರುವ ಎ-3 ರವರ ೆ1ೆK kೈlE
mೆnೕರೂಂನ ಎ-1, ಎ-2 ಮತು ಎ-3 ರವ43ೆ ರೂ. 50 ಲ© ನಗದು }ೕ.ರುತ ೆ.
4. +ಾಂಕ: 26-12-2017 ರಂದು -ೆಂಗಳi4ನ mಾಂ6)1ಾ Aೋkೇl ನ ಎ-1 & ಎ-3 ರವ43ೆ ರೂ.
25 ಲ© ನಗದು }ೕ.ರುತ ೆ.
5. +ಾಂಕ: 17-01-2018 ರಂದು ಚ+ೆbೖನ <ಾZ% ಹ$ಾ… Aೋkೇl ನ , ಎ-1, ಎ-3, ಎ-4, ಎ-4
ರವ43ೆ ರೂ. 50 ಲ© ನಗದು }ೕ.ದು_, ಅ ಆ ೋ#ಗಳ ಕ\ೆಯವ ಾದ ಾ -16 ೈಯ¬
•ಸಗು ಗf ಮತು ಾ -17 ಾಜmೇಖರD ರವರು ಇದ_ರು.
6. +ಾಂಕ: 19-01-2018 ರಂದು ಚ+ೆbೖನ <ಾZ% ಹ$ಾ… Aೋkೇl ನ , ಎ-1, ಎ-3, ಎ-4, ಎ-5
ರವ43ೆ ರೂ. 40 ಲ© ನಗದು }ೕ.ದು_, ಅ ಾ -17 ರವರು Aಾಜ4ದ_ರು.
7. +ಾಂಕ: 30-01-2018 ರಂದು ಚ+ೆbೖನ <ಾZ% ಹ$ಾ… Aೋkೆl ನ , ಎ-1, ಎ-3, ಎ-4, ಎ-5
ರವ43ೆ ರೂ. 1 ೋ ನಗದು }ೕ.ದು_, ಅ ಾ -17 ರವರು Aಾಜ4ದ_ರು.
8. +ಾಂಕ: 02-02-2018 ರಂದು ಚ+ೆbೖನ <ಾZ% ಹ$ಾ… Aೋkೆl ನ , ಎ-1, ಎ-3, ಎ-4, ಎ-5
ರವ43ೆ ರೂ. 65 ಲ© ನಗದು }ೕ.ದು_, ಅ ಾ -17 ರವರು Aಾಜ4ದ_ರು.
9. +ಾಂಕ: 03-02-2018 ರಂದು ಚ+ೆbೖನ <ಾZ% ಹ$ಾ… Aೋkೆl ನ , ಎ-1, ಎ-3, ಎ-4, ಎ-5
ರವ43ೆ ರೂ. 65 ಲ© ನಗದು }ೕ.ದು_, ಅ ಾ -17 ರವರು Aಾಜ4ದ_ರು.
10. +ಾಂಕ: 05-02-2018 ರಂದು -ೆಂಗಳi4ನ mಾಂ6)1ಾ Aೋkೆl ನ , ಎ-1, ಎ-2, ರವ43ೆ
22
ರೂ. 25 ಲ© ನಗದು }ೕ.ರುತ ೆ.
11. +ಾಂಕ: 06-02-2018 ರಂದು -ೆಂಗಳi4ನ mಾಂ6)1ಾ Aೋkೆl ನ , ಎ-1, ಎ-2, ರವ43ೆ
ರೂ. 30 ಲ© ನಗದು }ೕ.ರುತ ೆ.
12. +ಾಂಕ: 12-02-2018 ರಂದು ಎ-1 ರವರು }ೕ.ದ_ -ಾ;ಂZ ‘ಾ7ೆ *ವರ5ಾದ ಅಸ ಪದ kೆ)ೕO
ಇಂ<ೆZE ಕಂಪ}ಯ ೆಂಟ)l -ಾ;ಂZ, ಮುಂ-ೈ, ‘ಾ7ೆ ನಂ. 3469326745 ಇದ ೆF ರೂ. 35 ಲ©,
ರೂ. 20 ಲ© ಮತು ರೂ. 40 ಲ©ಗಳನುb (ಒಟು 95 ಲ©ಗಳƒ) ಕ)ಮ5ಾ6 ಾ©-1 ಮತು, 8 ರವರು
ತಮ9 1)5ೆlಕG ಎಂಟI <ೆJ ೆK ನ -ಾ;ಂZ ಆ• ಮAಾ ಾಷ-, -ಾ;ಂZ, ಗದಗ mಾ’ೆ ‘ಾ7ೆ
ನಂ.60248564956 4ಂದ ರೂ. 35 ಲ©, 2) ೆ. +ಾ ಾಯಣ ಾ ಅಂO ಕಂ, -ಾ;ಂZ ಆ•
ಇಂ.$ಾ, ಗದ® mಾ’ೆ ‘ಾ7ೆ ನಂ.848630110000010 4ಂದ ರೂ. 20 ಲ©, ಮತು 3) $ಾ
5ೈDE <ಾˆ% ()ೕ}5ಾK +ಾ ಾಯಣ ಾ ಕಂಪ}ಯ ಮ¯ೆಂ%ˆE ಬರl ೋ-ಆಪ ೇ ೕ¥
-ಾ;ಂZ . ಗದಗ mಾ’ೆ ‘ಾ7ೆ ನಂ. 00023020001068 4ಂದ ರೂ. 40 ಲ©ಗಳನುb ವ3ಾ%ವ ೆ
Rಾ.ರು7ಾ ೆ.
13. +ಾಂಕ:22-02-2018 ರಂದು -ೆಂಗಳi4ನ ಎ-3 ರವರ ೆ1ೆˆ kೈlE mೆnೕ ರೂಂನ , ಎ-1, ಎ-3
ರವ43ೆ ರೂ. 30 ಲ© ನಗದು }ೕ.ರುತ ೆ.
14. +ಾಂಕ:26-02-2018 -ೆಂಗಳi4ನ ಎ-3 ರವರ ೆ1ೆˆ kೈlE mೆnೕ ರೂಂನ , ಎ-1, ಎ-3
ರವ43ೆ ರೂ. 40 ಲ© ನಗದು }ೕ.ರುತ ೆ. cೕ3ೆ ಹಂತ ಹಂತ5ಾ6 ಒkಾ ೆ$ಾ6 ರೂ. 7.15
ೋ ಹಣವನುb ಆ ೋ#ಗಳƒ ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂ.ದು_, ಈ <ೈs ಎ-1 ರವರು }ೕ.ದ_ ಮುಂ-ೈ ಮೂಲದ
ಅಸ ಪದ kೆ)ೕO ಇಂ<ೆZE ಕಂಪ}ಯ ‘ಾ7ೆ3ೆ ಾ -1 ರವ43ೆ ಸಂಬಂQ ದ_ ಮೂರೂ ಕಂಪ}ಗಳ
‘ಾ7ೆಗgಂದ ರೂ. 95 ಲ© ಹಣ ವ3ಾ%ವ ೆ Rಾ.ರುತ ೆ.
8) ಾ -4 ರವರು ಸದ4 ಆ ೋ#ಗಳƒ ಾಲ ಮಂಜೂರು Rಾ.ದ_ ಸದ4 ‘ಾ7ೆ ನಂ. 60971523983
ರ ದ_ ರೂ.2,25,49,00,000.00 ಗಳನುb \ಾ) Rಾಡಲು ಾದ;5ಾಗ ೇtದು_, ಈ ಬ3ೆ~ ಆ ೋ#ಗಳನುb
ೇಳ1ಾ6 ^ೆ+ೆbೖ3ೆ ಬರುವಂ7ೆ Aೇgದು_. ^ೆ+ೆbೖ3ೆ Aೋ6ದು_, <ಾZ% ಹ$ಾ… Aೋkೇl ನ ತಂ6ದ_
ಆ ೋ#ಗಳನುb *^ಾ4ಸ1ಾ6 ಎK.•.ಐ, -ಾ;ಂZ ತಂ7ಾ)ಂಶದ 7ೊಂದ ೆ$ಾ6 ೆ. ಸ„ಲw ನ
ಾt4 ಎಂದು Aೇgರು7ಾ ೆ. ಸ„ಲw ನಗಳ ನಂತರ ಮ7ೆ ಾ -1 ರವರು ಆ ೋ#ಗಳನುb ಒ7ಾಯ
Rಾಡ1ಾ6, ಎK.•.ಐ, -ಾ;ಂZ ನ , ಸಮ ೆ;$ಾ6ದು_, ಐ. .ಐ. ಯ -ಾ;ಂZ }ಂದ ಾಲ
ೊ.ಸ1ಾಗುವ[ದು ಎಂದು Aೇgದು_, +ಾಂಕ:23-03-2018 ರಂದು ಆ ೋ#ಗಳƒ ^ೆ+ೆbೖ3ೆ ಕ ೆ ದು_,
ಸಂಗRಾ9Ž ಶುಗK% Aೆಸ4ನ ದ_ ರೂ. 49 ೋ ªತದ ಐ. .ಐ. . ಐ -ಾ;ಂZ ನ .. ಎ-3
ರವರು ಾ -8 ರವ43ೆ 5ಾˆE ಅ¡ ಮೂಲಕ ಕಳƒc ರು7ಾ ೆ, ಆದ ೆ ೊ ರುವ[ ಲ. ೆಲವ[ ನಗಳ
23
ನಂತರ ಎ3 ರವರು • ೇe ಕಳƒc ದು_, ‘Niyaz Bhai Gaya’ ಎಂದು • ೇe ನ ,
@g ರು7ಾ ೆ. ಾ -1, 8 & 9 ರವ43ೆ ಆ ೋ#ಗಳ ಬ3ೆ~ ಸಂಶಯ ಬಂ ದು_, *^ಾ4ಸ1ಾ6
ಆ ೋ#ಗgಗೂ ೋಲ ಇಂ.$ಾ ಕಂಪ}3ೆ ಮತು, ಎK.•.ಐ 3ೆ $ಾವ[ ೇ ಸಂಬಂಧ*ರುವ[ ಲ.
Aಾ;ಕI ಆದ ಮತು ಎಂ.•.ಎ 5ಾ;ಸಂಗ Rಾ.ರುವ 5ೆ{ . ೈD ಅನುಮಭವ*ರುವ ಎ-5
ೇಬರತbG ೇಬ0ೕವD ಈತನು ಎK.•.ಐ. Aೆಸ4ನ ನಕ 5ೆ-ೆEೖˆ ಸೃ° ದು_, ಅದರ
ನಕ $ಾ6 ಾ -1 ರವರ ಸಂಗG +ಾŽ ಶುಗK% Aೆಸ4ನ , ‘ಾ7ೆ 7ೆ ೆ ರು7ಾ ೆ. ಅಲ ೇ
ಸಂಬಂಧ*ಲದ ೋಲ ಇಂ.$ಾ ಕಂಪ}ಯ Aೆಸರನುb ಬಳ ೊಂಡು, ಾ -1 ರವರ ಸಂಗRಾbŽ
ಶುಗK% ಕಂಪ}•ಂ 3ೆ ಅ6)ೕ•ಂˆ Rಾ. ೊಂ.ರು7ಾ ೆ. ನಂತರ ಾಲ ಮಂಜೂ ಾ6ರುವಂ7ೆ
7ೋ4 , ಕuೕಷD ಹಣ ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂ.ದು_, ನಂತರ ೇಳ1ಾ6, 7ಾಂ@)ಕ ಸಮ ೆ;‹ಂದು Aೇg,
ಐ, ,ಐ. ಐ -ಾ;ಂZ Aೆಸ4ನ ನಕ .. }ೕ. ನಂ± ೆ ೊ)ೕಹ, ವಂಚ+ೆ Rಾ.ರು7ಾ ೆ. ನಂತರ
ಾ -1, 8 & 9 ರವರನುb ªದ 3ೆ ಪ4ಚಯRಾ. ೊ ದ_ ಎ-3 ವರನುb ೇಳ1ಾ6ದು_, ಸುRಾರು
ಒಂದೂವ ೆ ವಷ%ದ ವ ೆಗೂ ಾಲ ಮುಂದೂರಡು7ಾ ಬಂ ರು7ಾ ೆ, ನಂತರ ೋ*O ಬಂ ದು_,
ೋ*O ಸ„ಲw ಕ.•$ಾ6ದ_4ಂದ ಾ -1 ರವರು +ಾಂಕ: 16-07-2022 ರಂದು ಚಂದ)1ೇಔˆ
‡ ೕK ²ಾ ೆ3ೆ ಬಂದು ದೂರು }ೕ.ದ •ೕ ೆ3ೆ #.ಎK.ಐ. ಾ -34 ()ೕ ೋಮಪw 3ೌಡ • ಾ ಾರ
ರವರು ದೂರನುb ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂಡು ª.ಸಂ. 219/2022 ಕಲಂ 120(•), 420 ¸ÀºÀªÁZÀPÀ 34 L¦¹
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ®A 66(r0 L.n.PÁAiÉÄÝ jÃvÀå ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ಾಖ ೊಂಡು ತ}’ೆ ೈ3ೊಂ.ರು7ಾ ೆ.
9) ಾ -35 ()ೕ ಮ+ೋe ಎD.Aೆ‰., #.ಐ. ರವರು ಪ)ಕರಣವನುb ವ3ಾ%ವ ೆ ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂಡು ತ}’ೆ
ಮುಂದುವ ೆ ರು7ಾ ೆ. ಾ´ಾµಾರ ಸಂಗ)c ೊಂಡು ಬರುವಂ7ೆ ಾ -34 ಮತು ಬ¶ಂ ಗಳ ತಂಡ ೆF
·ಾಪನ }ೕ.ರು7ಾ ೆ, ಅದ ೆಂ7ೆ ಾ -34 ರ ತಂಡವ[ ಚ+ೆbೖ3ೆ Aೋ6 ಾ´ಾµಾರ ಸಂಗ)c ೊಂಡು
ಬಂ ದು_, ಮತು ಘನ +ಾ;$ಾಲಯ ಂದ ಇಂ •ೕಷD ಆ ೇಶ ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂ.ದು_, ಪ)ಕರಣದ ಎ-1
ಆ ೋ#ಯು ಈ cಂ ೆ ಅಂದ ೆ 2001-02 ರ ‹ೕ ಎK.•.ಐ ಅQ ಾ4ಗBೆi ಂ 3ೆ ೇ4 ೊಂಡು
..ಗಳನುb ನಕ Rಾಡುವ[ದು ಮತು ಕಳ¹ತನ Rಾ. ದುಬ%ಳ ೆ Rಾ. ೊಂ.ರುವ ಅಪ ಾಧಗಳ
•ಐ ಎ # ಮತು ಇಓ ಡಬೂºಗಳ ದಸ64$ಾ6ದು_, ಘನ +ಾ;$ಾಲಯದ •ಐನ ಎರಡೂ
ಪ)ಕರಣಗಳ , ಸ¯ಾ ಆ ಾu$ಾ6ದು_, ಚ+ೆbೖನ ೇಂದ) ಾ ಾಗೃಹದ ದು_, (LT-8410) ಆತನನುb rೇ
Rಾ. *^ಾರ ೆ Rಾ. ಚಂದ)1ೇಔˆ ‡ ೕK ²ಾ ೆಯ ಪ)ಕರಣದ ಮತು ಇತ ೆ Rಾc@ಗಳನುb
ಸಂಗ)c ೊಂಡು ಬಂ ರುತ ೆ, ಎ-1 ಆ ೋ#ಯು ಪ)ಕರಣದ ನ ಆ ೋಪಗಳ ಬ3ೆ~ ತಪwನುb
ಒ#w ೊಂ.ದು_, ಅಪ ಾಧ5ೆಸ6ರುವ[ ಾ6 *ವ4 Aೇgರು7ಾ ೆ, ಎ-1 … ಆ ೋ#ಯ ಪ@b ಎ-2
9$ಾ Yಾ@Rಾ ರವ43ೆ +ೋ ೕK ¯ಾ4Rಾ.ರುತ ೆ. ಎ-1 ಆ ೋ#ಯು ಸ¯ಾ
ಆ ಾu$ಾ6ರುವ •ಐನ ಎ • ಮತು ಇಓಡಬೂº ಗg3ೆ ಪ)ಕರಣಗಳ Rಾc@3ಾ6 ೋ4 ೆ
ಸ ರುತ ೆ, ಅ ಎ-1 ಈತನು ಾ ಾಗೃಹದ ದ_ರೂ ಐmಾ ಾu 0ೕವನ ನ\ೆಸು@ದು_, ª-ೈl
ಬಳಸು@ದ_ ಾF6 ಆತನ *ರುದ¼ 5ಾ;#ಯ ಪ[ಜl ‡ ೕK ²ಾ ೆಯ ಯೂ ಪ)ಕರಣ ಾಖ1ಾ6ರುತ ೆ,
24
ಸದ4 ಎ-1 4ಂದ ಎ-5 ರವ ೆ6ನ ಆ ೋ#ಗಳƒ ಾ -1 ರವ43ೆ ವಂ› ರುವಂ7ೆ‹ೕ ಅ ೇ
ಅವQಯ ‹ೕ ಸದ4 ಎK.•,ಐ.ನ ನಕ 5ೆ-ೆEೖˆ ಬಳ ೊಂಡು, ಹಲ5ಾರು ಜನ43ೆ ಾಲ
ೊ.ಸುವ[ ಾ6 ವಂ› ದು_, 1)Aೈದ ಾ-ಾ ನ ಅ± ೇZ @-ೆ)ೕ5ಾl (9866700021) ರವ43ೆ ರೂ. 50
ೋ ಾಲ ೊ.ಸುವ[ ಾ6 Aೇg ಅವ4ಂದ ರೂ. 50 ಲ© ಕuಷD ಎಂದು ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂಡು
ವಂ› ರು7ಾ ೆ. 2)ಮುಂ-ೈನ ೋಹD (9819599977) ರವ43ೆ 250 ೋ ಾಲ ೊ.ಸುವ[ ಾ6
Aೇg, ರೂ. 10 ೋ ಕuಷD ಎಂದು ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂಡು ವಂ› ದು_. ಸದ4ಯವರು ಆ ೋ#ಗಳ *ರುದ¼
ಮುಂ-ೈD ಮ1ಾO ‡ ೕK ²ಾ ೆಯ ª.ಸಂ. 235/2019 ರ , ಪ)ಕರಣ ಾಖ ರು7ಾ ೆ.
3)ತuಳƒ+ಾ.ನ 5ೆಲೂ4ನ ಆ l (9843978679) ರವ43ೆ ರೂ. 50 ೋ ಾಲ ೊ.ಸುವ[ ಾ6
Aೇg ರೂ. 50 ಲ© ಕuೕಷD ಎಂದು ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂಡು ªೕಸ Rಾ.ರು7ಾ ೆ. cೕ3ೇ ಸದ4
ಆ ೋ#ಗಳ ತಂಡವ[ ಎK.•.ಐ, Aೆಸ4ನ ನಕ 5ೆ-ೆEೖˆ ಸೃ° , ನಕ 5ೆ-ೆEೖˆ ನ ನಕ $ಾ6
‘ಾ7ೆ 7ೆ ೆ ೊಟು , ಆ ನಕ ‘ಾ7ೆಗg3ೆ ಾಲ ಮಂಜೂರು Rಾ.ರುವಂ7ೆ 7ೋ4 ದು_, ಹಲ5ಾರು
ಜನ4ಂದ ೋkಾ;ಂತರ ರೂ<ಾt ಕuೕಷD ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂಡು ವಂ› ರು7ಾ ೆ. ತ}’ಾ ಾಲದ
ಲಭ;5ಾದ ಾ´ಾµಾರಗಳಂ7ೆ ಪ)ಕರಣದ Aೆಚುœವ4$ಾ6 ಕಲಂ 406, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471
ಐ# ಗಳನುb ಅಳವ. ೊಂಡು ತ}’ೆ ಮುಂದುವ ೆ ರುತ ೆ.
10) ಎ-1 ಆ ೋ#ಯ *ರುದ¼ ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡ ಇತ ೆ ಪ)ಕರಣಗgರುತ5ೆ.
1. CBI, EOB, Chennai, case No. RC1/E/2002 U/s 120(b), 419, 468,
471, 420, 201, 5011 IPC and 13(2),13(1)(d) P.C. Act. — Case
convicted.
2. CBI, ACB, Chennai Case No. RC MA 1/2003/A 0018 U/s 120(b),
419, 468, 471, 420, 201 IPC and 13(2) 13(1)(d) P.C. Act – Case
convicted.
3. Malad Police Station, Mumbai Cr. No. 235/2019 U/s 406, 465, 467,
468, 471, 420 r/w 34 IPC and 66 (d) IT Act. – CC No. 2830/2021.
4. M-3, Puzhal Police Station, Chennai Cr. No. 477/2022 U/s 42 of
Prison Act.
11) ನಂತರ ಾ -35 ರವರ ಾ½ನ ೆF ವ3ಾ%ವ ೆ$ಾ6 ಬಂದ ಾ -36 ()ೕ ೆ.ಎK. ಹ ರವರು
ಪಕರಣವನುb ವ3ಾ%ವ ೆ ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂಡು ತ}’ೆ ಮುಂದುವ ೆ ರು7ಾ ೆ. ಎ-1 ಆ ೋ#ಯನುb -ಾ.
5ಾ ೆಂˆ ಆµಾರದ •ೕ1ೆ ತuಳƒ+ಾ.ನ ೊqÀØಲೂರು ೇಂದ) ಾ ಾಗೃಹ ಂದ (LT 17368) ವಶ ೆF
ಪ\ೆದು ಕ ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು +ಾಂಕ: 30-05-2023 4ಂದ 05-06-2023 ರವ ೆ3ೆ ‡ ೕK ಅ±ರ´ೆ3ೆ
ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂಡು *^ಾರ ೆ Rಾ.ರುತ ೆ. ಆ ೋ#ಯು ಾ -1 ರವರು }ೕ.ರುವ ದೂ4ನ ನ
25
ಆ ೋಪವನುb ಸತ;5ೆಂದು Aಾಗೂ 7ಾವ[ ಅಪ ಾಧ5ೆಸ6ರುವ[ ಾ6ಯೂ ಒ#w ೊಂ.ರು7ಾ ೆ. ಅಲ ೇ
ವಂಚ+ೆಯ ಹಣದ ಕುಟುಂ ಾF6 ಐmಾ ಾu ಾರುಗಳನುb, ಲ´ಾಂತರ -ೆ1ೆ -ಾಳƒವ ಬkೆ ಗಳƒ
ವಡ5ೆಗಳƒ, ಕನbಡಕಗಳƒ, 5ಾ‰ ಗಳನುb, ಸ„ತುಗಳನುb ಖ4ೕ ರುವ[ ಾ6 Aಾಗೂ * ೇಶಗg3ೆ
Aೋ6 ವ;ಯ Rಾ.ರುವ[ ಾ6ಯೂ Aೇgರು7ಾ ೆ. ಇವರ ಪ@b 9$ಾ Yಾ@Rಾ ಕೂಡ ಪ)ಕರಣದ
ಎ-2 ಆ ೋ#$ಾ6ರುವ[ ಾ6 ಮತು ಕೃತ;ದ ಆ ೆಯೂ rಾ6$ಾ6ರುವ[ ಾ6 ಒ#w ೊಂ.ರು7ಾ ೆ.
12) ಎ-1 ಆ ೋ#ಯು ಮು0ೕ{ ಅಬು_l u$ಾD @ ¸ÀįÉʪÀiÁ£ï ºÀĸÉÊ£ï @ ¤AiÀiÁeï SÁ£ï @
¤AiÀiÁeï cೕ3ೆ ಹಲ5ಾರು Aೆಸರುಗgಂದ ಹಲ5ಾರು ಜನ43ೆ **ಧ 4ೕ@ಯ ವಂ› ದು_
ೋkಾ;ಂತರ ರೂ<ಾt ಅಕ)ಮ5ಾ6 ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂ.ರು7ಾ ೆ. ಈತನು $ಾವ[ ೇ ಾನೂನು 4ೕ@ಯ
ವ;ವAಾರ Aೊಂ ರ ೇ, ಹಲ5ಾರು ವಷ%ಗgಂದ ಹ5ಾಲ ಅಕ)ಮ ವ;ವAಾರದ ದಂ ೆಯ 7ೊಡ6ದು_,
ನಕ ವಸುಗಳನುb -ೇ ೆ ಕ\ೆtಂದ ಕಳ¹ Rಾಗ%5ಾ6 ತಂದು ಅಸಲು ಸರಕು ಎಂದು Rಾ ಾಟ Rಾ.
ವಂ›ಸುವ ^ೋರ+ಾ6ರು7ಾ+ೆ. ಎ-1 ರವರ ‘ಕುಟುಂಬ ೆF $ಾವ[ ೇ ಆµಾಯದ ಮೂಲಗgಲ ದ_ರೂ,
ಅವರು ಈಗಲೂ ಪ)@ Rಾ ಕ ಸುRಾರು ರೂ.1.5 ಲ© 5ೆಚœದ ಐmಾ ಾu *1ಾದ -ಾ.3ೆ ಾರ ಾ6
ಇ ಾ_ ೆ, ಅಲ ೇ ಖುದು_ ಪ4(ೕಲ+ೆtಂದ @g ರುವಂ7ೆ ಐmಾ ಾu ಮತು 5ೈಭÂೕ<ೇತ 0ೕವನ
ನ\ೆಸು@ ಾ_ ೆ, ಎ-1 ಆ ೋ#ಯು ತನb ಎರಡ+ೇ ಪ@b ಎ-2 9$ಾ Yಾ@Rಾ ರವರನುb
*5ಾಹ5ಾ6ದು_, ಆ ೆಯ Aೆಸ4ನ @ರುaÑಯ ಮತು ಇತ ೆ ಕ\ೆಗಳ •+ೆ, ‘ಾ }5ೇಶನ,
ಪ@bಯ ತಂ ೆ Aೆಸ4ನ ವ;ವAಾರದ ಜೂ;5ೆlE ಅಂಗ. ಮತು ಾ1ೇಜು ವ;ವAಾರಗಳ ೋkಾ;ಂತರ
ರೂ<ಾt ಹೂ. ೆ Rಾ.ರುವ[ದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ ರುತ ೆ.
13) ಎ-2 9$ಾ Yಾ@Rಾ, ಇವರು ಮೂಲತಃ ಎ-1 ಆ ೋ#ಯ ಸ„ಂತ ಊ ಾದ ತuಳƒ+ಾ.ನ
@ರು›œ 5ಾ $ಾ6ದು_, ಎ-1 ರವ43ೆ -ಾಲ; ಂದಲೂ ಪ4ಚಯಸ½ ಾ6ರು7ಾ ೆ. ಇವರ ªದಲ Aೆಸರು
*0, ಇವರು 1998ರ , ಚ+ೆbೖ ಮೂಲದ ()ೕಧI ಎಂಬುವರನುb *5ಾಹ Rಾ. ೊಂ.ದು_, 2002ರ
*^ೆÆೕಧನ ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂ.ರು7ಾ ೆ. ಇವ43ೆ ತರುÇ -ಾ1ಾ0 ಎಂಬುವ ಮಗ}ದು_, ಈಗ ಎ-2
ರವ ೊಂ 3ೆ 5ಾಸRಾ. ೊಂ.ರು7ಾ+ೆ. ಎ-2 ರವರು 2002ರ -ಾಲ; ಂದಲೂ ಪ4ಚಯ*ದ_ ಎ-1
ರವರನುb *5ಾಹ Rಾ. ೊಂ.ದು_, ಮ7ಾಂತರ 3ೊಂಡ ನಂತರ 9$ಾ Yಾ@Rಾ ಎಂದು Aೆಸರು
ಬದ1ಾt ೊಂ.ರು7ಾ ೆ, ಎ-1 ರವ43ೆ ªದಲ ಪ@b•ಂ 3ೆ *^ೆÆೕಧನ5ಾ6ದು_, ಅವ43ೆ ಆ‹ ಾ
Yಾ@Rಾ ಎಂಬುವ ಮಗgದು_, ಎ-1 ಮಗಳƒ ಮತು ಎ-2 ಮಗ ಇಬ¶ರೂ ಈಗ ಎ-1 ಮತು ಎ-2
ರವ ೊಂ 3ೆ 5ಾಸRಾ. ೊಂ.ರು7ಾ ೆ. ಎ-2 ರವರು ಮ7ಾಂತರ5ಾದ ನಂತರ ಮತು ತಮ9 ªದಲ
ಪ@ ()ೕಧI ರವ ೊಂ 3ೆ 2002ರ , *^ೆÆೕಧನ ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂಡ ನಂತರವÈ ತನb cಂ ನ Aೆಸರು-*0
ಎಂಬುದನುb ದುಬ%ಳ ೆ Rಾ. ೊಂಡು, ತನb ಏ^ೆÆೕ ತ ಪ@ಯ Aೆಸರು ಬg ೊಂಡು ತನb ಮಗ ತರುÇ
-ಾ1ಾ0 ರವ43ೆ ರಹ ಾ4 ಪತ) ಸಂ’ೆ;: 23947408 ಅನುb ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂ.ರು7ಾ ೆ. ಎ–2 ರವರು ಎ-1
ಮತು ಇತರ ೊಂ 3ೆ ೇ4 ೊಂಡು ಾ -1 ಮತು ಇತರ43ೆ ವಂ› ರುವ[ದು ದೃಢಪ ರುತ ೆ. ಅ®è ೇ
26
7ಾವ[ ಈ cಂ ೆ ಹಲ5ಾರು ವಷ%ಗಳ cಂ ೆ ೇವಲ ಒಂದು ವಷ% Rಾತ) 5ಾಸ*ದ_ ಾ -14 ರವರ
Rಾ ೕಕತ„ದ ನಂ. 50/42, +ಾ ಾಯಣ ನಬಗD, ಪ[ದು<ೆkೆ , ಅ ಾXಸ¯ÉÊ ಚ+ೆbೖ – 600002
ತuಳƒ+ಾಡು ಈ *Bಾಸದ ಯ ಮದ;ಮ ವಗ%ದ ಮ+ೆಯ *Bಾಸವ+ೆbೕ ಎ1ಾ ಕ\ೆಗಳ ಯೂ
ಬgಸು@ದು_, ಘನ ಉಚœ +ಾ;$ಾಲಯದ }4ೕ© ಾ ¯ಾuೕನು ಪ\ೆದು ೊಳ¹ಲೂ (s)uನl # ಷD
ನಂ. 10979/2023) ಕೂಡ ಇ ೇ *Bಾಸ ಬಳ ರು7ಾ ೆ. ಆದ ೆ +ೈಜ5ಾ6 ಇವರು ಪ)@ Rಾ ಕ
ಲ´ಾಂತರ ರೂ<ಾt 5ೆಚœRಾಡು7ಾ, ಐmಾ ಾu *1ಾ, ನಂ. -1, ಅಮರಅನಂತ, ಇ. .ಆI.
ರ ೆ, <ಾಲವಕFಂ, ಚ+ೆbೖ – 600041, ತuಳƒ+ಾಡು ಇ 5ಾಸRಾ. ೊಂ.ರು7ಾ ೆ, ಸದ4 ಎ-2
ಆ ೋ#ಯು ¯ಾuೕನು ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂಡ ನಂತರ -ೆಂಗಳi4ನ ಎಂ.0.ರ ೆಯ ರುವ ಹ$ಾ…
Aೋkೇl ನ ತಂ6ರುವ[ ಾ6 *ವರ }ೕ.ದು_, ೇವಲ ಒಂ ೆರಡು ನ Rಾತ) ಇದು_, ನಂತರ ‘ಾ
Rಾ. ೊಂಡು Aೋ6ರು7ಾ ೆ. ¯ಾuೕನು ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂಡು, ತ}’ೆ3ೆ ಸಹ4ಸ ೇ ಇದ_ ಾರಣ,
¯ಾuೕನು ರದು_ Rಾಡಲು }5ೇ ೊಂ.ರುತ ೆ. (ಸ ಾ%ರದ s)uನl # ಷD ನಂ. 8289/2023).
ಎ-2 ರವರು ಪ)ಕರಣ ರದು_ ೋ4 ಘನ ಉಚœ +ಾ;$ಾಲಯ ೆF s)uನl # ಷD ನಂ. 3417/2023
ರ , ಅ0% ಸ ರು7ಾ ೆ. ಎ-1 ಮತು ಎ-2 ರವರು ವಂಚ+ೆtಂದ ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂ.ರುವ ೋkಾ;ಂತರ
ರೂ<ಾt ಹಣದ ತಮ9 ಸ„ಂತ ಊ ಾದ @ರು›œಯ 50 * 60 ಅ. ಅಳ7ೆಯ ಕಟ ಡ ಸಂ’ೆ;: 11, 60
*80 ಅ. ಅಳ7ೆ }5ೇಶನ ಸಂ’ೆ;: 9 ಮತು 10 ಎರಡು }5ೇಶನಗಳನುb ಖ4ೕ ರು7ಾ ೆ. ಅಲ ೇ ಲ7ಾ
ಜು;5ೆಲ4 Rಾˆ% 3ೆ ೋkಾ;ಂಟರ ರೂ<ಾt ಬಳ ೊಂ.ರು7ಾ ೆ. ಆ ೋ#3ೆ ಹಲ5ಾರು
+ೋ ೕK ಗಳನೂb }ೕ.ದರೂ ತ}’ೆ3ೆ ಸಹಕ4 ರುವ[ ಲ. ಸದ4 ಎ-2 ಆ ೋ#3ೆ ಸಂಬಂQ ದಂ7ೆ
ಾ´ಾµಾರಗಳ ಸಂಗ)ಹ ಇನೂb -ಾstರುತ5ೆ. ಆ ೋ#ಯು ತ}’ೆ3ೆ ಸಹಕ4ಸದ ಾರಣ ತ}’ೆ
ಪÈಣ%3ೊಂ.ರುವ[ ಲ.
14) ಎ-4 ಆ ೋ# ೆ -ಾ1ಾ0ೕ ಈತನನುb ತuಳƒ+ಾ.ನ ಚ+ೆbೖನ ಪ7ೆ Rಾ.ದು_, +ಾಂಕ:26-02-
2023 ರಂದು ದಸ64Rಾ.ದು_ *^ಾರ ೆ ಸಲು5ಾ6 ‡ ೕK ಅ±ರ´ೆ3ೆ ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂ.ರುತ ೆ, ಆದ ೆ
ಆ ೋ#ಯು ಅ+ಾ ೋಗ;#ೕ.ತ+ಾ6ದು_, *^ಾರ ೆ Rಾಡಲು ಾಧ;5ಾ6ರುವ[ ಲ. ಆ ೋ#ಯನುb
* ೊ ೕ4$ಾ ಆಸw7ೆ)ಯ ಒಳ ೋ6$ಾ6 ಾಖ ದು_ ನಂತರ +ಾಂಕ:02-03-2024 ರಂದು
•ಡುಗ\ೆ$ಾ6ದು_, ಆ ೋ#ಯನುb +ಾ;$ಾಂಗ ಬಂಧನ ೆF M¦à¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ಆ ೋ#ಯನುb ದಸ64
Rಾ.ದ ನದಂದು ಆರಂ±ಕ *^ಾರ ೆ Rಾ.ದು_ ಎK.•.ಐ. ಅQ ಾ4ಗಳಂ7ೆ ಆ ೋ#ಯು ಪ)ಕರಣದ
ಕೃತ;ದ ಬ3ೆ~ ಒ#w ೊಂ.ರು7ಾ+ೆ. ಸದ4 ಎ4 ಮತು ಎ 5 ಆ ೋ#ಗಳƒ ಎK •ಐ ಅQ ಾ4ಗಳಂ7ೆ
ನ ದು_, ಎ-5 ಆ ೋ#‹ೕ ಎK.•.ಐ Aೆಸ4ನ , ನಕ 5ೆ-ೆEೖˆ ಸೃ° ದು_, ಸದ4 *ಷಯದ
ಪ)*ೕಣ+ಾ6ರುವ[ ಾ6ಯೂ @g ರು7ಾ ೆ, ವಂಚ+ೆtಂದ ಪ\ೆದ ಹಣದ , ಎಲರೂ
ಹಂ› ೊಂ.ರುವ[ ಾ6ಯೂ Aಾಗೂ ತನb <ಾ 3ೆ ಒಟು ರೂ. 2 ೋ ಬಂ ರುವ[ ಾ6ಯೂ
ಒ#w ೊಂ.ರು7ಾ ೆ, ಅ ೇ 4ೕ@ ಎ-1 ರವರು ಅ@ Aೆಚುœ ಹಣ ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂ.ದು_, ಅವರು Aೇgದಂ7ೆ‹ೕ
ತಂಡವ[ ಕೃತ;5ೆಸ6ರುತ ೆ. ಸದ4 ತಂಡದ ದ_ ಾಜmೇಖರD ಮತು ೈಯ¬ •ಸಗು ಗf, ಸರವಣ,
27
ೕಪZ ೇ4ದಂ7ೆ ಹಲವರು ಕೂಡ ಕೃತ;ದ rಾ6$ಾ6ರು7ಾ ೆ ಎಂದು *^ಾರ ೆ ಾಲದ
ಒ#w ೊಂ.ರು7ಾ ೆ. ಆ ೋ#ಯನುb ಪÈಣ% ತ}’ೆ3ೊಳಪ.ಸಲು ಾದ;5ಾಗ ೇtರುವ[ದ4ಂದ
ತ}’ೆ ಪÈಣ%3ೊಂ.ರುವ[ ಲ. ಆ ೋ#ಯು ವಂಚ+ೆಯ ಹಣ ಂದ ಸಂ<ಾQ ೆ_ಂದು Aೇgರುವ
1ಾ;<ಾ¡, ª-ೈl Ïೕನ~ಳƒ, ೈಗ.$ಾರಗಳƒ, ಕನbಡಕಗಳƒ, ೕl◌ಂlಗಚಳನುb ಸದ4
ಆ ೋ#ಯ ವ;ವAಾರ +ೋ. ೊಳƒ¹ವ ಾ -19 ()ೕ ಪ) ಾy ರವರು +ಾಂಕ:01-03-2024 ರಂದು
ತಂದು Aಾಜರುಪ. ದು_, ಸದ4 ಸ„ತುಗಳನುb ಪಂ^ಾಯು ಾರ ಾದ ಾ -6 & 7 ಸಹ ಾರ ೊಂ 3ೆ
ಅRಾನತುಪ. ೊಂ.ದು_ ಸ„ತುಪ ಸಂ’ೆ;: 43/2024 ರ ಅಳವ. ೊಂ.ರುತ ೆ. ೈಬI
ತÑ43ೆ ಕಳƒc ವರ ಪ\ೆಯ-ೇ ಾ6ರುತ ೆ. ಸದ4 ಆ ೋ#ಯು ಶರವಣ ಎಂ-ಾತ+ೊಂ 3ೆ
ೇ4 ೊಂಡು Yೈ+ಾDE ವ;ವAಾರ Rಾಡು@ದು_, ವಂಚ+ೆtಂದ ಬಂದ ಹಣದ , ಾರುಗಳನುb
ಅಡRಾನ Rಾ. ೊಂಡು, Yೈ+ಾDE Rಾ.ದು_, ಾರುಗ¼ÁzÀ 1) 1) TN 14 AE 0333, Volvo,
2) PY 01 VC 1999, BMW, 3) TN 22 DS 0007 Benz, 4) TN 60 AB 0444
Benz ಾರುಗಳನುb ªÀ±ÀzÀ°è ElÄÖPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ಅಲ ೇ ವಂಚ+ೆಯ ಹಣ ಂದ TN 02 BR 7000
-ೆಂe ಬಳ ರುವ ಾರನುb ಖ4ೕ ದು_, ತನb Aೆಸ43ೆ +ೋಂ ಾt ೊಂ.ರುವ[ ಲ. ಸದ4
ಆ ೋ#ಯು ವಂಚ+ೆtಂದ ಬಂದ ಹಣದ , ಾರುಗಳನುb ಅಡRಾನ Rಾ. ೊಂಡು, Yೈ+ಾDE
}ೕಡುವ ವ;ವAಾರ Rಾಡು@ದು_, ಾ´ಾµಾರ ಸಂಗ)cಸ-ೇ ಾ6ರುತ ೆ.
15) ಎ-6 ಅಸ ಪದ kೆ)ೕO ಇಂಪI, <ಾ)#)‹ೕಟI mಾc¬ ªಹಮ9¬ ಇ-ಾ)cಂ ಆ6ದು_, ಸದ4
ಕಂಪ}ಯ ೆಂಟ)l -ಾ;ಂZ ಆ• ಇಂ.$ಾ -ಾ;ಂZ ‘ಾ7ೆ ನಂ. 3469326745 ಈ ‘ಾ7ೆ3ೆ
#$ಾ%ದು ಾರ ಾದ ಾ -1 ರವರ 5ೆಲFಂ ಎಂಟ<ೆJ% ೆK, ೆ. +ಾ ಾಯಣ ಾ ಅಂO ಕಂ, ಮತು
$ಾ 5ೈDE . -ಬೂ;ಟI ಕಂಪ}ಗಳ ‘ಾ7ೆಗgಂದ +ಾಂಕ: 12-02-2018 ರಂದು ಒಟು ರೂ. 95
ಲ© ವ3ಾ%ವ ೆ$ಾ6ದು_. ಸದ4 ಹಣವನುb ವ3ಾ%ವ ೆ Rಾಡುವಂ7ೆ ಎ-1 ರವರು @g ರುವ[ದು
ಕಂಡುಬಂ ರುತ ೆ. ಸದ4 ಅಸ ಪದ kೆ)ೕO ಇಂ<ೆZE ಕಂಪ}ಯ ‘ಾ7ೆ ನಂ. 3469326745 ಇದರ
‘ಾ7ೆಯನುb \ೆ•ˆ ž)ೕe Rಾಡಲು ೆಂಟ)l -ಾ;ಂZ ಇಂ.$ಾ3ೆ +ೋ ೕK ಮೂಲಕ ೋ4 ೆ
ಸ ರುತ ೆ. ಸದ4 ಕಂಪ}ಯ <ಾ)#)‹ೕಟI ಆ6ರುವ mಾc¬ ಇ-ಾ)cಂ Âೕ ಾ ರವರ Aೆಸ4ನ
ೆಂಟ)l -ಾ;ಂZ ಇಂ.$ಾದ ಮ7ೊಂದು ‘ಾ7ೆ ನಂ. 3316890426 ಇದು_, ಸದ4 ಕಂಪ}ಯ
‘ಾ7ೆtಂದ <ಾ)#)‹ೕಟI ‘ಾ7ೆ3ೆ ಹಣ ವ3ಾ%ವ ೆ ವ;ವAಾರ ಇರುವ[ದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ ರುತ ೆ. ಎ-1
ರವರ *^ಾರ ೆ ಾಲದ , ಸದ4 ಎ-1 ರವ ೇ, ಒ#w ೊಂ.ದು_, ೊಳ3ೇ4 5ಾ mಾc¬ ªಹಮ9¬
ಇ-ಾ)cಂ ಎಂ-ಾತನ ೆ5ೈ ಾಖ1ೆ ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂಡು, ಹ5ಾಲ ವ;ವAಾರ ಾF6‹ೕ ಅಸ ಪದ kೆ)ೕO
ಇಂ<ೆZE ೇ4ದಂ7ೆ ಹಲ5ಾರು ಕಂಪ}ಗಳನುb 7ೆ ೆ ದು_, ವಂಚ+ೆಯ ಹಣವನುb ಸದ4 ನಕ
ಕಂಪ}ಗg3ೆ Aಾs ೊಳ¹1ಾಗು@ದು_, ಅ ೇ 4ೕ@ ಸದ4 ಪ)ಕರಣದ #$ಾ%ದು ಾರ4ಂದಲೂ
ಅಸwÕಪದ kೆ)ೕO ಇಂ<ೆZE ಕಂಪ}ಯ ‘ಾ7ೆ3ೆ ರೂ. 95 ಲ© ಹಣ Aಾs ೊಂ.ರುವ[ ಾ6
ಒ#w ೊಂ.ರು7ಾ ೆ. ಸದ4 ಕಂಪ}ಯ *Bಾಸ ೆF ಖುದು_ ಾ -34 ()ೕ ೋಮಪw3ೌಡ • ಾ ಾರ
28
ರವರ ‡ ೕK ತಂಡವ[ Aೋ6 *^ಾರ ೆ Rಾ.ದು_, ಆ ೋ#ಯು ಾ -15 ರವರ Rಾ ೕಕತ„ದ
ವ²ಾರದ ಸAೋದರ ಕುಟುಂಬ ೊಂ 3ೆ ಹಲ5ಾರು ವಷ%ಗಳ cಂ ೆ 5ಾಸ*ದು_ ‘ಾ Rಾ. ೊಂಡು
Aೋ6ದು_, ಸದ4 ವ;sಯ *ರುದ¼ ಮುಂ-ೈ ಮ1ಾO ‡ ೕK ²ಾ ೆಯ ದೂರು ಇರುವ[ ಾ6
@gದುಬಂ ರುತ ೆ ಎಂದು @g ದರು. ಸದ4 *^ಾರ5ಾ6 ಾಖ1ೆ ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂಡು ¥ÀgÀ²Ã°¸À¯ÁV
ªÀįÁqï ¥ÉƯÉÆøï oÁuÉ ªÉÆ.¸ÀA. 235/2019 U/s 406, 465, 467, 468, 471,
420 r/w 34 IPC and 66 (d) IT-Act. – CC No. 2830/2021 ಆ6ದು_, ಸದ4
ಪ)ಕರಣದ ಎ-1 ಕೂಡ ಪ)ಮುಖ ಆ ೋ#$ಾ6ರು7ಾ+ೆ. ಸದ4 ಎ-6 ಆ ೋ#ಯು +ಾಪ7ೆ$ಾ6ದು_,
ಪ7ೆRಾಡ-ೇ ಾ6ರುತ ೆ.
16)ಎ-7 ನ*ೕD ಕುRಾI ಈತನು ಎ-4 ಸಹಚರ+ಾ6ದು_, ಆ ೋ#ಯು #$ಾ%ದು ಾರ ಾದ ಾ -1
ರವರ ಕ\ೆtಂದ ಹಣ ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂಡು ವಂ› ದ ನಂತರ ಮ7ೇ ಾ -1 ರವರ ಕ\ೆtಂದ ವಂಚ+ೆ
ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ºÀt ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV ಸಂಪಕ% ೆF ಬಂ ದು_, ಬ3ೆಹ4 ೊಡು7ೇ+ೆ, ಆ ೋ#ಗಳƒ
ನಮ9 ಸಂಪಕ%ದ zÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀA©¹ gÀÆ. 20 ಲ© ಹಣ ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂಡು ವಂ› ರು7ಾ ೆ. ಸದ4
ಆ ೋ#ಯು ತ1ೆಮ ೆ ೊಂ.ದು_, +ೊ ೕK ಅನುb ಅಂ^ೆ ಮೂಲಕ ರ5ಾ} ದು_, ಆ ೋ#ಯು
ಪ7ೆ$ಾ6ರುವ[ ಲ, ಪ7ೆ Rಾಡ-ೇ ಾ6ರುತ ೆ.
17)ಎ-3 *ನq ಕುRಾI ಅಗ5ಾ%l ಈತನು -ೆಂಗಳi4ನ ಇಂ ಾ ನಗರದ , ೆ1ೆK kೆlE
mೆnೕರೂಂ ಮತು 0ಗfಯ Yಾ;ಕ 4 ಇಟು ೊಂ.ರು7ಾ ೆ. ಅ ೇ 4ೕ@ Aೈದ ಾ-ಾ¬ ನ ಯೂ ಕೂಡ
mೆnೕರೂಂ ಮತು Yಾ;ಕ 4 ಇದು_, ಸದ4 ಪ)ಕರಣದ #$ಾ%ದು ಾರರೂ ೇ4ದಂ7ೆ ಹಲ5ಾರು ಜನರನುb
ಆ ೋ#ಗg3ೆ ಪ4ಚt ೊ ದು_, ಾಲ ೊ.ಸುವ[ ಾ6 Aೇg ವಂ› ದು_, ಅ ೇ 4ೕ@, ಅ ೇ
ಅವQಯ ಾಲ ೊಡುವ[ ಾ6 ವಂ› ದು_, ಸದ4 ಆ ೋ#ಗಳ ತಂಡುವ[ +ಾ¯ÉÌöÊದು ಜನ43ೆ
ವಂ› ದು_, ಒkಾ ೆ ಸುRಾರು ರೂ. 20 ೋ ಗೂ ಅQಕ ಹಣವನುb ಕuೕಷD ಎಂದು
ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂ.ರುವ[ದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ ರುತ ೆ, ಸ4 ಆ ೋ#‹ೕ ಐ. .ಐ. .ಐ -ಾ;ಂZ Aೆಸ4ನ, ರೂ. 49
ೋ ªತದ #$ಾ%ದು ಾರರ ಕಂಪ}ಯ Aೆಸ4ನ ರುವ ನಕ ..ಯನುb #$ಾ%ದು ಾರರ
ಸAೋದರ ಾ -8 ರವ43ೆ 5ಾˆE ಅ¡ ಮೂಲಕ ಕಳƒc ದು_, ವಂಚ+ೆಯ ಪ)ಮುಖ <ಾತ)
ವc ರು7ಾ ೆ. ಸದ4 ಆ ೋ#ಯು ವಂಚ+ೆಯ ಾಲದ ಬಳ ದ_ ª-ೈlಗಳ <ೈs ಒಂದು
ª-ೈl ಅನುb Aಾಜರುಪ. ದು_, ಸ„ತುಪ ಸಂ’ೆ;: 139/2023 ಇ ಅRಾನತು ಪ. ೊಂ.ರುತ ೆ.
ಮ7ೊಂದು ª-ೈl ಅನುb Aಾಜರುಪ.ಸವಂ7ೆ ಸೂ› ರುತ ೆ. ಸದ4 ಆ ೋ#ಯು ಘನ Aೆ‰
+ಾ;$ಾಲಯ ಂದ ಷರತು ಬದ¼ }4ೕ© ಾ ¯ಾuೕನು ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಬಂ ದು_, ಆರಂ±ಕ *^ಾರ ೆ
Rಾ.ರುತ ೆ. Aೆ›œನ *^ಾರ ೆ Rಾಡ-ೇ ಾ6ರುತ ೆ. ಆದ ೆ ಸದ4 ಆ ೋ#ಯು ಘನ ಉಚœ
+ಾ;$ಾಲಯದ , s)uನl # ಷDE ನಂ.9272/2023 ರ ತ}’ೆ3ೆ ತ\ೆ$ಾ·ೆ ಆ ೇಶ
ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂ.ರು7ಾ ೆ. 7ೆರ5ಾದ ನಂತರ ತ}’ೆ ಮುಂದುವ ೆ , -ಾstರುವ ಾ´ಾµಾರಗಳನುb
29
ಸಂಗ)c ಘನ +ಾ;$ಾಲಯ ೆF ವರ }5ೇ ೊಳ¹1ಾಗುವ[ದು, ಆದುದ4ಂದ ಸದ4 ಆ ೋ#3ೆ
ಸಂಬಂQ ದ ಾ´ಾµಾರಗಳನುb ಸದ4 ೋ ಾ ೋಪ ಾ ಪ ಯ , ಅಡಕ3ೊgಸ ೇ
-ಾst4 ೊಂ.ರುತ ೆ.
18)ಎ-5 ಆ ೋ#ಯನುb 04-06-2023 ರಂದು ದಸ64 Rಾ.ದು_, 12-06-2023 ರವ ೆ3ೆ ‡ ೕK
ಅ±ರ´ೆ3ೆ ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂಡು *^ಾರ ೆ Rಾ.ರುತ ೆ. *^ಾರ ೆ ಾಲದ ಆ ೋ# ಆ ೋ#ಯ ವಶದ ದ
1ಾ;¡ kಾ¡, ª-ೈl Ïೕನ~ಳƒ ಮತು <ೆD \ೆJ5ೆ4ದಂ7ೆ ಇತ ೆ ವಸುಗಳನುb
ವಶಪ. ೊಂ.ರುತ ೆ. ಸದ4 1ಾ;<ಾ¡ ಮತು ª-ೈl ÏೕD ಗಳನುb ಪ4(ೕಲ+ೆ Rಾ.ಸ1ಾ6,
ಆ ೋ#ಗಳƒ ೋಲ , ಇಂ.$ಾ <ೆJ. . ಕಂಪ} Aೆಸ4ನ , ಾ -1 ರವರ ಸಂಗªÀiÁߎ ಶುಗK%
ಕಂಪ}•ಂ 3ೆ Rಾ.ರುವ ಅ6)ೕ•ಂˆ ಪ)@, ಸದ4 ಆ ೋ# ಎ-5 ಈತನು ತನb ೆbೕcತ+ಾ ಾ –
17 ರವ43ೆ ಇ-•ೕl Rಾ.ರುವ ಾಖ1ೆ, ಎK.•. ಐ. Aೆಸ4ನ ನಕ 5ೆ-ೆEೖˆ Rಾc@ಗಳƒ Aಾಗೂ
ಸದ4 ಪ)ಕರಣದ ಕೃತ;ದ ಸಂಬಂಧ 5ಾˆE ಅ¡ ^ಾlÎಳƒ ಲಭ;5ಾ6ರುತ5ೆ. ಆ ೋ#ಯು
ವಂಚ+ೆtಂದ ಸಂ<ಾQ zÀÝ ಹಣದ <ೈs ತನb ಸಹಚರ+ಾದ ಾ -16 ರವ43ೆ }ೕ.zÀÝ ಹಣ ರೂ.
6,96,500/- ಗಳನುb ಾ -16 ರವರು +ಾಂಕ: 06-06-2023 ರಂದು ತಂದು Aಾಜರುಪ.ದು_, ಸ„ತುಪ
ಸಂ’ೆ;: 71/2023 ರ , ಅRಾನತುಪ. ೊಂ.ರುತ ೆ. +ಾಂಕ: 11-06-2023 ರಂದು ಆ ೋ#ಯ
ವಶ ಂದ ಅRಾನತುಪ. ೊಂ.ರುವ ಸ„ತು ಪ ಸಂ’ೆ;: 73/2023 ರ ನ 1ಾ;¡ kಾ¡, ª-ೈl
ÏೕD ಗಳ ಪ)ಕರಣದ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಾ´ಾµಾರಗಳƒ ಲಭ;5ಾ6ರುತ5ೆ, ಆ ೋ#ಯು ಸದ4 ಸ„ತು
ಪ ಯ ನ ಬಹು7ೇಕ ಸ„ತುಪ ಸಂ’ೆ;ಯ 1ಾ;<ಾ ¡, ª-ೈl Ïೕನ~ಳi, 5ೆD \ೆJ¥,
5ಾZÀÎಳƒ, <ಾK ‡ೕˆ% ೇ4ದಂ7ೆ ಹಲವ[ ಸ„ತುಗಳನುb ಘನ +ಾ;$ಾಲಯದ ಆ ೇಶ
ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂಡು •ಡುಗ\ೆ Rಾ. ೊಂ.ರು7ಾ ೆ, ಆ ೋ#ಯು ಎಂ.•.ಎ ಪದ*ೕದರ+ಾ6ದು_,
()ೕಲಂ ಾದ ಮೂಲದವ ಾ6ದು_ ಜಮ%} <ೌರತ„ Aೊಂ ದು_, •)ಟD ಪ)¯ೆಯನುb *5ಾಹ5ಾ6ದು_
ಲಂಡD ನ , 5ಾಸRಾ. ೊಂ.ದು_, ಲಂಡD ನ ‹ೕ Finno Medical, Idiosysy, Opal
Invest Limited, East and West Market Limited, JPM Max Limited, ¸ÉÃjzÀAvÉ
ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ PÀA¥À¤UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝs, ಎ -1 ಎ-2 ರವ ೊಂ 3ೆ ೇ4 ೊಂಡು ಲಂಡD ನ ,
Ellismuir Limited ಎಂಬುವ * F ಮದ; ಉ7ಾwಧ+ಾ ಕಂಪ} Aೊಂ ರು7ಾ ೆ, ಎ-1, ಎ-2 ಮತು
ಎ-5 ರವರು ೇ4 ೊಂಡು ವಂಚ+ೆ ಹಣದ ಸುRಾರು 5 ೋ ಹಣ ಹೂ. ೆ Rಾ.ರುವ[ ಾ6
ಒ#w ೊಂ.ದು_, ಇನೂb Aೆ›œನ ಹಣ ಹೂ. ೆ Rಾ.ರುವ ಾಧ;7ೆtರುತ ೆ. ಸದ4 ಆ ೋ#ಯು
ೋಲFತದ Idiosys ಕಂಪ}ಯ mಾ’ೆtರುವ[ ಾ6 ಆ ೋ#ಯು «ZÁgÀuÉ PÁ®zÀ°è
M¦àPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, ºÉaÑ£À ªÀiÁ»w ¸ÀªÀÄUÀ滸À¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ವಂಚ+ೆ ಸಲು5ಾ6‹ೕ
ಚ+ೆbೖನ ಹ$ಾ… Aೋkೇl ನ ಇತ ೆ ಆ ೋ#ಗBೆi ಂ 3ೆ ಹಲ5ಾರು @ಂಗಳƒಗಳ ಾಲ ತಂ6zÀÄÝ
ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁqÉÆÃzÉà ªÁmïì D¥ï UÀÆæ¥ï ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, ವಂಚ+ೆtಂದ ಪ\ೆದ ಹಣವನುb * ೇಶ ೆF
ರ5ಾ+ೆ Rಾ.ದು_ ಇದ ಾF6 ಾ ಾರ ಾದ ಾ -16, 17 ರವರು ಸಹಕ4 ರುವ ಬ3ೆ~ Rಾc@
30
ಲಭ;5ಾ6ದು_, ಾ´ಾ ಾರ ಸಂಗ)cಸ-ೇ ಾ6ರುತ ೆ. ವಂಚ+ೆ3ಾ6 ನಕ $ಾ6
ಸೃ° ರುವ www.sbicf.co.in 5ೆ-ೆEೖˆ -ನಕ $ಾ6 ಸೃ° ರುವ[ದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ ದು_ Aೆ›œನ
ಾ´ಾµಾರ ಸಂಗ)cಸ-ೆ ಾ6ರುತ ೆ. ಅಲ ೇ ಸದ4 ಮ} 1ಾಂಡ4ಂ® ಪ)ಕರಣದ *^ಾರ5ಾ6
ಆ ೋ#3ೆ ಇ.., ಇ1ಾ’ೆಯವರು +ೋ ೕK }ೕ.ರುವ[ದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ ರುತ ೆ, ಆ ೋ#ಯು ಘನ
ಉಚœ +ಾ;$ಾಲಯದ s)uನl # ಷD ನಂ. 7416/2023 ರ , ತ}’ೆ3ೆ ತ\ೆ$ಾ·ೆ
ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂ.ದು_, ಸದ4 ಆ ೋ#3ೆ ಸಂಬಂQ ದಂ7ೆ ತ}’ೆ ಪÈಣ%3ೊgಸಲು ಾದ;5ಾ6ರುವ[ ಲ.
7ೆರ5ಾದ ನಂತರ ತ}’ೆ ಪÈಣ%3ೊg ಘನ +ಾ;$ಾಲಯ ೆF ವರ ಸ ಸ1ಾಗುವ[ದು.
19) ಆ ೋ#ಗಳƒ ವಂಚ+ೆ ಸಲು5ಾ6 ಎK.•.ಐ. Aೆಸ4ನ , ನಕ $ಾ6
ಸೃ° ರುವ www.sbicf.co.in 5ೆ-ೆEೖˆ ಅನುb s)‹ೕˆ Rಾ.ರುವ ಮೂಲದ ಸಂಬಂಧ
Endurance Digital Domain Technology LLP India ರವ ೊಂ 3ೆ e-mail ಮೂಲಕ
ವ;ವಹ4 ದು_, ಮತು Public Domian Registry.com ರವ4ಂದ Rಾc@ ಸಂಗ)cಸ1ಾ6ದು_,
*ವರ:
1) Domain NamsLsbicf.co.in,
2) Registrar: Endurance Domains Technology LLP,
3) Created on: 2017-11-18 20:13:47 (GMT),
4) Expiry Date: 2018-11-18 21:04:44 (GMT),
5) Current Status: Deleted,
6) Registration IP: 106.203.120.211
ನಕ 5ೆ-ೆEೖˆ 3ೆ ಸಂಬಂQ ದ *ವರ ಆ6ದು_ ಸದ4 5ೆ{ ೈˆ s)‹ೕˆ Rಾಡಲು
ಬಳ ೊಂ.ರುವ *ವರಗಳನುb ಪ\ೆದು ಪ4(ೕ ಸ1ಾ6:
1) Name: DGM,
2) Company N/A,
3) Email: [email protected],
4)Address: Navi Mumbai Maharashtra,
5)City: Mumbai,
6) State: Madhyapradesh,
7)Country: IN,
8)ZIP: 400614,
9)Tel No.; 91 2227566057
ಎಂಬುವ *ವರ ಬಳ ೊಂಡು ಸದ4 ಎK.•.ಐ. ನ Aೆಸ4ನ ನ www.sbicf.co.in ನಕ
5ೆ-ೆEೖˆ ಅನುb ಸೃ° ೊಂ.ರುವ[ದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ ರುತ ೆ, ಅಲ ೇ ಸದ4 5ೆ{ ೈˆ ಅನುb ಸೃ° ಸಲು
31<ಾವ@ ರುವ ಹಣದ *ವರಗಳƒ ೇ4ದಂ7ೆ ಇತ ೆ Aೆ›œನ Rಾc@ಗಳƒ, ಹಲವ[
ನಗBಾ6ರುವ[ದ4ಂದ, ಲಭ;*ರುವ[ ಲ, ಮತು }ವ%ಹ ೆ Rಾ.ರುವ[ ಲ5ೆಂದು @g ರು7ಾ ೆ.
ಾ´ಾಧ ಸಂಗ)ಹ ಮುಂದುವ ೆ ೆ.
20) ಆ ೋ#ಗಳƒ ಹಣ ಸಂಗ)c ದ_ -ೆಂಗಳi4ನ ಚಂದ)1ೇಔˆ, 60 ಅ. ರ ೆಯ ರುವ ೆ.ಎ•. ,
ಬg +ಾಂಕ: 01-06-2023 ರಂದು ಪಂ^ಾಯು ಾರ ಾದ ಾ -2 ಮತು 3 ರವರ Aಾಜ ಾ@ಯ ಸ½ಳ
ಪಂಚ+ಾ• ಜರು6 ರುತ ೆ.
21) ಎ-1 ಆ ೋ#ಯು ತಂ6ದು_, #$ಾ%ದು ಾರ ಾದ ಾ -1, 8 & 9 ರವರನುb rೇ Rಾ.ದು_, ಹಣ
ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂ.ದ_ ಸ½ಳ5ಾದ -ೆಂಗಳi4ನ AೈUËæAqïì ‡ ೕK ²ಾ ೆಯ ಸ½ಳ5ಾದ mಾಂ6)1ಾ
Aೋkೇl ನ 12£Éà ªÀĺÀr gÀÆA £ÀA.1218 gÀ°è J-1 ¸ÀܼÀ vÉÆÃj¹zÀ •ೕ ೆ3ೆ +ಾಂಕ: 31-05-
2023 ರಂದ ಪಂ^ಾಯು ಾರ ಾzÀ ¸ÁQë-2 & 3 gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀzÉÆA¢UÉ ಸ½ಳ ಪಂಚ+ಾ•
ಜರು6 ರುತ ೆ.
22) ಎ-1 ಮತು ಎ- 2 ರವರು ವಂಚ+ೆ ನಂತರ ೋkಾ;ಂತರ ರೂ<ಾt ಹಣ ಬಳ ೊಂಡು
ಸಂ<ಾQ ರುವ ಮತು ಅ±ವೃ ¼ ಪ. ರುವ ತuಳƒ+ಾ.ನ @ರುaÑಯ ನ ಸ„ತುಗಳƒ, ಮ+ೆ ಮತು
ಲ 7ಾ ಜು;5ೆl Rಾˆ% ಗಳನುb ಎ-1 ಆ ೋ#ಯು 7ೋ4 ದ •ೕ ೆ3ೆ ಪಂ^ಾಯು ಾರ ಾದ ಾ –
4 & 5 ರವರ ಸಹ ಾರ ೊಂ 3ೆ ಪಂಚ+ಾ• ಜರು6 ರುತ ೆ.
22) ಎ-4 ಆ ೋ#3ೆ ಸಂಬಂQ ದ ಮತು ಪ)ಕರಣದ ತ}’ೆ3ೆ ಅಗತ;5ೆ} ದ ಸ„ತುಗಳನುb ಆ ೋ#ಯ
ವ;ವAಾರ +ೋ. ೊಳƒ¹ವ ಾ -19 ರವರು ತಂದು Aಾಜರುಪ. ದು_, ಪಂ^ಾಯು ಾರ ಾದ ಾ -6 &
7 ರವರ ಸಹ ಾರ ೊಂ 3ೆ ಅRಾನತುಪ. ೊಂಡು ಸ„ತುಪ , ಸಂ’ೆ;: 43/2024 ರ ,
ಅಳವ. ರುತ ೆ. ತÑ43ೆ ಕಳƒc ವರ ಪ\ೆದು ಾ´ಾµಾರ ಸಂಗ)c ಪ4(ೕ ಸ-ೇ ಾ6ರುತ ೆ.
23) #$ಾ%ದು ಾರ ಾದ ಾ -1 ರವರ ಸAೋದರ ಾ -8, ಾ -1 ರವರ -ಾಲ; ೆbೕcತ ಾ -9,
mಾಂ6)1ಾ Aೋkೇ®ß£À ೆಕೂ;4 Rಾ;+ೇಜI ಾ -10, ಹ$ಾ… Aೋkೇ®ß ೆಕೂ;4
Rಾ;+ೇಜI ಾ -11, ಆ ೋ#ಗg3ೆ ಹ$ಾ… Aೋkೇl ನ , ೇ5ೆ }ೕ.ರುವ Aೋkೇl ಬ¶ಂ
ಾ -12 ಆ ೋ#ಗBೆi ಂ 3ೆ ಘಟ+ಾ ಸಮಯದ ಇದ_ ಾ -16 ಮತು 17, ಎ-4 ಆ ೋ#•ಂ 3ೆ
ಇದ_ ಾ -18, 19 ಮತು 20 ರವರ *^ಾರ ೆtಂದ ಮತು ತ}’ಾ ಾಲದ ಸಂಗ)c ರುವ
ಾ´ಾµಾರಗgಂದ ಆ ೋ#ಗBೆಲರೂ ಒಳಸಂಚು ನ\ೆ , ಎK.•.ಐ, -ಾ;ಂZ ಅQ ಾ4ಗಳಂ7ೆ
ವ@% ದು_, ೋಲ ಇಂ.$ಾ ಕಂಪ}ಯ Aೆಸರನುb ದುಬ%ಳ ೆ Rಾ. ೊಂಡು, ನಕ $ಾ6 5ೆ{
ೈˆ ಸೃ° ದು_, ಾಲ ೊ.ಸುವ[ ಾ6 Aೇg ನಕ $ಾ6 ಸೃ° ದ_ 5ೆ{ ಮತು ಾಖ1ೆಗಳನುb
32
ದುಬ%ಳ ೆ Rಾ. ೊಂಡು, ರೂ. 2,25,49,00,000/- ಾಲ ಮಂಜೂರು Rಾ.ರುವ[ ಾ6 ನಂ± ,
ಾ -1 ರವರ ಕ\ೆtಂದ ಹಣ ಹಂತ5ಾ6 ಒಟು ರೂ. 7.15 ೋ ಹಣ ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂಡು ವಂ› ರುವ[ದು
ದೃಢಪ ರುತ ೆ.
24) ಆದುದ4ಂದ ಆ ೋ#ಗBಾದ 1) ಎ-1 ಮು0ೕ{ ಅಬು_l u$ಾD @ }$ಾK@ ಸು1ೈRಾD
ಹು ೈD @ }$ಾK ‘ಾD @ ಅಬು_l ರ¯ಾZ, ಅಬು_l u$ಾD 53 ವಷ% 2) 9$ಾ Yಾ@Rಾ
@ 9$ಾ PÉÆÃA ಮು0ೕ{ ಅಬು_l u$ಾD @ }$ಾK@ ಸು1ೈRಾD ಹು ೈD @ }$ಾK
‘ಾD @ ಅಬು_l ರ¯ಾZ, 41 ವಷ%, 3) ಎ-4 ೆ. -ಾ1ಾ0ೕ •D 1ೇˆ. . ಕೃಷXಮೂ@%, 42 ವಷ%,
4) ಎ-6 ಅ¸ÀÖಪದ kೆ)ೕO ಇಂ<ೆZE (<ಾ)#)‹ೕಟI- mಾc¬ ªಹಮ9¬ ಇ-ಾ)cಂ), ಎ-7) ನ*ೕD
mಾ @ £À«Ã£ï PÀĪÀiÁgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ PÀ®A 120©, 406, 419, 420, 465, 467,
468, 471 ¸ÀºÀªÁZÀPÀ 34 L¦¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ®A 66(.) ಐ. , ಾ‹_ ಅ.ಯ ೋ ಾ ೋಪ ಾ
ಪ ಯನುb ಘನ +ಾ;$ಾಲಯ ೆF }5ೇ ೊ.ರುತ ೆ.
}5ೇದ+ೆ,
1) ಪ)ಕರನದ , ತ}'ೆ ಮುಂದುವ ೆ ದು_, ಕಲಂ 173(8) ಆI.#. . ಅ.ಯ , ಅನುಮ@3ಾ6
}5ೇ ೊಂ.ರುತ ೆ. ತ}'ೆ ಮುಂದುವ ೆ , ಲಭ;5ಾಗುವ ಾ´ಾµಾರಗಳ ಆµಾರದ •ೕ1ೆ ಮುಂ ೆ
ವರ ಸ ,ಸ1ಾಗುವ[ದು,
2)ಆ ೋ#ಗBಾದ ಎ-3 *ನq ಕುRಾI ಅಗ5ಾ%l ಮತು ಎ-5 ೇಬ0ೕವD ೇಬರತbG ರವರು
ಘನ ಉಚœ +ಾ;$ಾಲಯದ ಕ)ಮ5ಾ6 s)uನl # ಷD ನಂ. 9272/2023 ಮತು 7416/2023
ಗಳ , ತ}’ೆ3ೆ ತ\ೆ$ಾ·ೆ ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂ.ದು_, ಸದ4 ಇಬ¶ರೂ ಆ ೋ#ಗg3ೆ ಸಂಬಂQ ದಂ7ೆ
ಆ ೋಪ ೆಯನುb -ಾst4 ೊಂ.ದು_, ತ}’ೆಯೂ -ಾstರುತ ೆ. ತ\ೆ$ಾ·ೆ 7ೆರ5ಾದ ನಂತರ
ತ}’ೆ ಪÈಣ%3ೊg , ಾ´ಾµಾರಗಳನುb ಸಂಗ)c ಘನ +ಾ;$ಾಲಯ ೆF ವರ ಸ ಸ1ಾಗುವ[ದು,
3)ಎ-6 ಮತು ಎ-7 ರವರು ತ1ೆಮ ೆ ೊಂ.ದು_, ಪ7ೆ ಾಯ% ಮುಂದುವ ೆ ರುತ ೆ. ಸದ4
ಪ)ಕರಣದ ಇನೂb ಹಲವರು rಾ6$ಾ6ರುವ[ ಾ6 ಆರಂ±ಕ5ಾ6 ಸಂಶಯಗಳƒ ಕಂಡುಬಂ ದು_,
Aೆ›œನ Rಾc@ ಸಂಗ)c ಮುಂ ನ ಕ)ಮ 7ೆ3ೆದು ೊಳ¹1ಾಗುವ[ದು ಲಭ;5ಾಗುವ ಾ´ಾµಾರಗಳ
ಆµಾರದ •ೕ1ೆ ಮುಂ ನ ವರ }5ೇ ೊಳ¹1ಾಗುವ[ದು.”
The investigation has revealed not an isolated lapse, but a
concerted conspiracy allegedly replicated across States
33
involving the victim. The role attributed to each of the
accused is neither vague nor incidental. The summary of the
charge sheet painstakingly delineates the part played by
each accused – from introduction and inducement to
technological execution, to siphoning off and laudering of
funds.
11. The learned senior counsel Sri Hashmath Pasha appearing
for the accused No.3 contends that he has no role to play in the
entire transaction. He has only introduced the complainant to
others. There cannot be anything farther from truth. The role of
accused No.3/Vinay Kumar Agarwal and the transactions made by
him into the account are clearly brought out in the summary of the
charge sheet. The learned senior counsel Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar
appearing for accused No.2 who is the wife of accused No.1 seeks
to contend that just because she is the wife of accused No.1, to arm
twist accused No.1 the crime is registered. This again is contrary to
record. What accused No.2, the wife of accused No.1 has done is
also clearly brought out in the summary of the charge sheet,
though the charge sheet is yet to be filed against them in the light
34
of the interim order. Further, permission to file additional charge
sheet is sought by the Investigating Officer, which is said to be
pending to be filed, awaiting the decision at the hands of this Court
in the subject petitions.
12. In the present case, the allegations transcend the
realm of mere breach of promise or failure of a commercial
venture. They strike at the heart of public trust in banking
systems and digital infrastructure. Creation of fake
websites, impersonation of bank officials, fabrication of
electronic communications are and can never be matters
that can be brushed aside, as civil disputes or the
transactions being purely civil in nature.
13. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners that a civil case cannot be given a
colour of crime and would seek to place reliance upon certain
judgments that hold that a transaction that is purely civil in nature
cannot be permitted to be tried before criminal Courts. While there
can be no qualm about the principles laid down by the Apex Court
35
in those cases, it would always depend upon facts and
circumstances of each case. The Apex Court has time and again
held that, even if the issue is purely civil in nature, it would not
preclude registration of crime and continuance of criminal trial even
if a civil suit is pending. In the case at hand, there is no suit
instituted for the purpose of recovery of money. What is projected
is a structured cybercrime. In such circumstances, reference being
made to few judgments of the Apex Court would become apposite.
14.1. The Apex Court in ROCKY v. STATE OF TELANGANA1
has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
24. The appellant’s core contention, that the
dispute is purely civil in nature, is untenable at this stage.
Although courts must guard against giving criminal
colour to civil disputes, it is equally well settled that the
existence of civil remedies does not preclude criminal
prosecution where the allegations disclose the essential
ingredients of an offence. Civil and criminal proceedings
may validly coexist if the factual matrix supports both.”
1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2713
36
14.2. The Apex Court in ANURAG BHATNAGAR v. STATE
(NCT OF DELHI)2 has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
45. The allegations in the application moved under
Section 156(3) CrPC and the material in support thereof
reveals that SHL is contending breach of the conditions of
MoU dated 11.03.1995 and that it has been induced and
deceived by VLS for entering into the aforesaid MoU. VLS
has cheated SHL and its officers by making a false
promise which was legally impossible to be carried out.
The allegations of breach of conditions of the MoU or of
making a false promise by itself may not give rise to any
criminal action as no criminality is attached to it.
However, there are elements of inducement, criminal
conspiracy and cheating which are also borne out from
the allegations made in the application and the
complaint, which if proved, may amount to commission of
an offence. Therefore, once such allegations are made
out, it is difficult for the court in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction to interfere with the FIR, only for the reason
that some of the disputes are of civil nature which may or
may not be having any criminality attached to it.
46. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this
Court, especially in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal Singh,
that the discretion to quash an FIR at a nascent stage has to be
exercised with great caution and circumspection. In this
connection, it would be beneficial to refer to an old case of Privy
Council in King Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad Khwaja wherein the law
was well settled that the courts would not thwart any
investigation or that the courts should be very slow in
interfering with the process of investigation. It is only in rare
cases where no cognizable offence is disclosed in the FIR that
the court may stop the investigation so as to avoid the
harassment of the alleged accused. Even in such exercise of
power, the court cannot embark upon an inquiry as to the
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or
2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1514
37
the complaint which have to be examined only after the
evidence is collected.
47. The breach of conditions of the MoU or
allegations of false promises in relation to the aforesaid
MoU are undisputedly subject matter of the different FIRs
lodged by VLS itself. Therefore, violation of those
conditions for some reasons have been considered by VLS
to be offensive. Therefore, the High Court rightly held
that if breach of those conditions of the MoU itself has
been considered to be of criminal nature by VLS, it cannot
be permitted to turn around and allege that such breach
of conditions would be of pure civil nature.
48. Thus, in the above facts and circumstances, we do
not consider to go into detail as to the exact nature of disputes
involved in the FIR and leave the same to be adjudicated upon
by the appropriate court where the chargesheets have been
submitted.”
14.3. In KATHYAYINI v. SIDHARTH P.S. REDDY3, the
Apex Court has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
19. We now come to the issue of bar against
prosecution during the pendency of a civil suit. We
hereby hold that no such bar exists against prosecution if
the offences punishable under criminal law are made out
against the parties to the civil suit. Learned senior counsel
Dr.MenakaGuruswamy has rightly placed the relevant judicial
precedents to support the above submission. In the case of K.
Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S.3, this Court has reviewed its
precedents which clarify the position. The relevant paragraph
from the above judgment is extracted below:
“8. It is thus well settled that in certain cases the
very same set of facts may give rise to remedies in civil as3
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1428
38well as in criminal proceedings and even if a civil remedy is
availed by a party, he is not precluded from setting in
motion the proceedings in criminal law.”
20. In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar4, this Court summed
up the distinction between the two remedies as under:
“21. … There are a large number of cases
where criminal law and civil law can run side by side.
The two remedies are not mutually exclusive but
clearly coextensive and essentially differ in their
content and consequence. The object of the criminal
law is to punish an offender who commits an offence
against a person, property or the State for which the
accused, on proof of the offence, is deprived of his
liberty and in some cases even his life. This does not,
however, affect the civil remedies at all for suing the
wrongdoer in cases like arson, accidents, etc. It is an
anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available,
a criminal prosecution is completely barred. The two types
of actions are quite different in content, scope and import.
It is not at all intelligible to us to take the stand that if the
husband dishonestly misappropriates the stridhan property
of his wife, though kept in his custody, that would bar
prosecution under Section 406 IPC or render the ingredients
of Section 405 IPC nugatory or abortive. To say that
because the stridhan of a married woman is kept in the
custody of her husband, no action against him can be taken
as no offence is committed is to override and distort the real
intent of the law.”
21. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Kamaladevi
Agarwal v. State of W.B.,
“17. In view of the preponderance of authorities to
the contrary, we are satisfied that the High Court was not
justified in quashing the proceedings initiated by the
appellant against the respondents. We are also not
impressed by the argument that as the civil suit was
pending in the High Court, the Magistrate was not justified
to proceed with the criminal case either in law or on the
basis of propriety. Criminal cases have to be proceeded with
in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under
the Code of Criminal Procedure and the pendency of a civil
39
action in a different court even though higher in status and
authority, cannot be made a basis for quashing of the
proceedings.”
22. After surveying the abovementioned cases, this Court
in K. Jagadish (supra) set aside the holding of High Court to
quash the criminal proceedings and held that criminal
proceedings shall continue to its logical end.
23. The above precedents set by this Court make it
crystal clear that pendency of civil proceedings on the
same subject matter, involving the same parties is no
justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima
facie case exists against the accused persons. In present
case certainly such prima facie case exists against the
respondents. Considering the long chain of events from
creation of family tree excluding the daughters of K.G.
Yellappa Reddy, partition deed among only the sons and
grandsons of K.G. Yellappa Reddy, distribution of
compensation award among the respondents is sufficient
to conclude that there was active effort by respondents to
reap off the benefits from the land in question. Further,
the alleged threat to appellant and her sisters on
revelation of the above chain of events further affirms
the motive of respondents. All the above factors suggest
that a criminal trial is necessary to ensure justice to the
appellant.”
14.4. In PUNIT BERIWALA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI, 4
the Apex Court holds as follows:
“MERE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS CANNOT ACT AS
A BAR TO INVESTIGATION OF COGNIZABLE OFFENCES4
2025 SCC OnLine SC 983
40
28. It is trite law that mere institution of civil
proceedings is not a ground for quashing the FIR or to
hold that the dispute is merely a civil dispute. This Court
in various judgments, has held that simply because there
is a remedy provided for breach of contract, that does not
by itself clothe the Court to conclude that civil remedy is
the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal
proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the
process of the court. This Court is of the view that
because the offence was committed during a commercial
transaction, it would not be sufficient to hold that the
complaint did not warrant a further investigation and if
necessary, a trial. [See: Syed Aksari Hadi Ali Augustine
Imam v. State (Delhi Admin.), (2009) 5 SCC 528, Lee Kun
Hee v. State of UP, (2012) 3 SCC 132 and Trisuns
Chemicals v. Rajesh Aggarwal, (1999) 8 SCC 686]”
(Emphasis supplied at each instance)
The Apex Court in ROCKY‘s case supra holds that existence
of civil remedy does not preclude criminal prosecution, where
allegations disclose essential ingredients of an offence. The case
was concerning the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420,
344 and 506 of the IPC. The Apex Court only quashed the offence
under Section 406, but sustained the other offences and permitted
trial after looking into the fact that the issue is purely civil in
nature.
In ANURAG BHATNAGAR‘s case supra the Apex Court
refused to quash the proceedings, since memorandum of
41
understanding contained elements of inducement and criminal
breach of trust made out in the allegations noticed in the complaint.
The Apex Court holds that, that may itself constitute an offence.
In KATHYAYINI’s case supra civil suits were pending on the
same issue involving the same parties. The Apex Court holds that
mere pendency of suit between the same parties does not justify
quashing of criminal proceedings, if prima facie case exists against
the accused. Pendency of civil suit will not create a bar against
prosecution, if the offences punishable under the criminal law are
made out against the accused, notwithstanding the fact that they
are same parties in the civil suit.
In PUNIT BERIWALA‘s case supra, the Apex Court holds,
mere institution of civil proceedings cannot act as a bar against
investigation of cognizable offence. The Apex Court has thus
consistently held that the existence of a civil remedy does not
eclipse criminal prosecution, where the allegations disclose the
ingredients of an offence.
42
15. One common thread that runs through the afore-quoted
judgments of the Apex Court is that, the given set of facts disclose
both civil wrong and criminal culpability. Merely because, in the first
blush case projects a civil wrong, the criminal case cannot be
quashed, notwithstanding the fact that identical relief is sought in
the civil suit and the civil suit is between the same parties. It would
all depend on the facts obtaining in each case.
16. The case at hand is akin to a crime thriller or a crime pot
boiler. The accused/perpetrators of cybercrime have created a fake
website of State Bank of India and have managed to hack the
website of State Bank of India to generate OTP to make the
complainant believe that he has, in fact, received the amount to his
account; again, hacked the website of State Bank of India to show
the balance in the account of the complainant as ₹225/- crores and
secured the commission from the hands of the complainant at
₹7.15 crores. The complainant has lost ₹7.15 crores in the
aforesaid cybercrime episode. He has neither got ₹225/- crores nor
has set up a sugar factory. It is a clear case where all the accused
have come together to hatch a conspiracy to cheat the complainant.
43
Therefore, the offences that are alleged being the ones punishable
under Sections 120B, 406, 419 and 420 of the IPC are clearly met,
as the complainant is lured into parting an amount of ₹7.15 crores
without a rupee coming into his account and the intention of the
accused from the inception is to cheat the complainant.
17. What would remain is offences under Sections 465, 467,
468 and 471 of IPC, all of which deal with offence of forgery which
is undoubtedly met in the case at hand. If the facts obtaining in
the case at hand and the allegations do not constitute cheating, I
fail to understand as to what else can it be. If in these cases
indulgence is shown under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., it would
amount to putting a premium on the cyber hacking by the accused.
The accused are a cartel who have succeeded in cheating the
complainant to the tune of ₹7.15 crores. Therefore, it is for the
accused to come out clean in a full-blown trial. At this juncture,
this Court is not called upon to weigh evidence or pronounce
upon guilt, the only question is, whether materials disclose
prima facie case, warranting continuation of proceedings.
On a careful consideration as noticed hereinabove, the
44
answer is unmistakably in the affirmative. To quash the
proceedings at this stage would be to smother a serious
prosecution in its infancy and to grant immunity, where
proceedings cry out for a full blown trial. This Court thus,
finds these petitions meritless.
18. In the result, these petitions are rejected. Interim order
if any operating shall stand dissolved.
Consequently, pending applications if any, also stand
disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Bkp
CT:MJ