Case Name: Sri Nagaraja V v. State of Karnataka & Another
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 15535 of 2022 (GM-RES)
Date: Thursday, Twenty-Fourth of September, Two Thousand and Twenty-Six
Court: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
Quorum: Justice V. Srishananda
FACTS
The Petitioner (Accused No. 5) is a businessman engaged in the manufacture of ready-mix concrete and was approached by G.T. Srinivas (Accused No. 1), the Managing Director of M/s Vinyas Constructions Private Limited, and was offered a directorship in the company in 2015. He accepted the offer without any remuneration. Respondent No. 2, one of the directors of the said company, later filed a complaint alleging that Accused No. 1 had pressurised him to transfer shares worth Rs. 15,00,000 and when Respondent No.2 refused, he was threatened. He further alleged that Accused No. 1 in collusion with Accused No. 4 (the Company Secretary), had forged a resignation letter in his name and uploaded Form DIR-12 on the MCA portal, thereby removing him from the Board. On this complaint, F.I.R was registered at Channammanakere Achukattu Police Station, Bengaluru, for offences u/s 406, 408, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), r/w Sections 65 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed and the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, took cognisance. The Petitioner, approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), against the order taking cognisance.
LEGAL ISSUES
- Whether the charge sheet discloses any prima facie material to show that the Petitioner colluded or conspired with Accused Nos. 1 and 4?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India- Confer on the High Court the power of judicial review through writs and superintendence over subordinate courts.
- Section 482 of CrPC 1973 (S.528 of BNSS, 2023)- Preserves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as are necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
- Section 120B of IPC, 1860 (S.61(2) of BNS, 2023)- Prescribes punishment for criminal conspiracy.
- Section 420 of IPC, 1860 (S.318(4) of BNS, 2023)- Punishes cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
- Sections 65 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000- Provide for punishment for tampering with computer source documents and for computer-related offences.
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER- The Petitioner argued that neither the complaint nor the charge sheet material contains anything beyond omnibus allegations that the Petitioner “colluded” and “conspired” with Accused No. 1. It was further submitted that the Petitioner was a director without any remuneration and shares in the company who had resigned on 11.06.2019, which was disclosed to the Investigating Officer. Therefore, continuation of the case was stated to be a gross abuse of the process of law.
STATE (RESPONDENT NO. 1)- The High Court Government Pleader supported the charge sheet by contending that the fraud was committed by Accused No. 1 with the active assistance of Accused No. 4 and the Petitioner was its beneficiary.
RESPONDENT NO. 2- The Complainant adopted the State’s arguments and added that Accused No. 1 pressurised the complainant to sell shares and upon refusal, removed him clandestinely with the aid of Accused No. 4. It was contended that the Petitioner was appointed in his place and that the Petitioner’s involvement in the fraud must be presumed as evidence of intention is seldom available.
ANALYSIS
The Court found that the charge sheet merely contained omnibus allegations of collusion and conspiracy as no material had been collected on this except the oral statements of the accused, the complainant and other witnesses.
The Court observed that there was not a single piece of documentary evidence prima facie sufficient to conclude that the Petitioner colluded with Accused Nos. 1 and 4 to remove Respondent No. 2. It also posed a question which was left unanswered by the State and the Respondent No.2: if the Petitioner was truly a beneficiary, what was the necessity for him to resign? Additionally, the Court held that since the Petitioner did not derive remuneration, there was no wrongful loss to Respondent No. 2 or wrongful gain to the Petitioner, which is a sine qua non for proceeding under Section 420 of the IPC.
On the offence of conspiracy, the Court relying on Mohd. Khalid v. State of West Bengal, (2002) 7 SCC 334, held that positive evidence need not be available in the charge sheet material to establish criminal conspiracy under Section 120B. However, the Court found that nothing was available on record except the oral statements of the complainant and witnesses to prima facie determine a case of conspiracy. The Court also recorded that not even an iota of material existed against the Petitioner for the offences under Sections 506, 408, 420, 465, 467, 468, 469 and 471 of the IPC.
The Court held that continuing the case against the Petitioner would result in gross abuse of the process of law. The Court reiterated that filing of a charge sheet affects the individual right of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution, especially when the charge sheet is bald and without any material.
JUDGEMENT
The Karnataka High Court quashed the pending criminal case against the Petitioner and clarified that its observations shall not affect the merits of the matter insofar as the other accused persons are concerned.
CONCLUSION
The Court reaffirmed that while positive evidence is not essential to prove criminal conspiracy, the prosecution must still place some material on record showing the accused’s role.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: T. R. AISIR RAO
Read the judgment copy below : SRI NAGARAJA V VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER
