SMT PAVITRARAMANUJAM vs THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
WP No. 7336 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 8938 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7336 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8938 OF 2021
IN WP NO.7336/2026:
BETWEEN:
SMT. PAVITRARAMANUJAM
D/O N. RAMANUJAM
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT P-40/G-A/BLOCK-I
th
SEAWARD 4 STREET
VALMIKI NAGAR
THIRUVANMIYUR, VELACHERY
CHENNAI
TAMIL NADU – 600041
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GAUTHAM S. BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ARJUN A. HEBBAR, ADVOCATE )
AND:
THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
BENGALURU ZONAL UNIT
HMT MACHINE TOOLS LIMITED PREMISES
BANGALORE COMPLEX, JALAHALLI
BENGALURU 560 01
REP. BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MADHU N. RAO, CGC - ABSENT)
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
WP No. 7336 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 8938 of 2021
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 READ WITH SECTION 528
OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023
PRAYING TO QUASH THE E-MAIL/SUMMONS DATED 19.02.2026
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT/ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
AND CONSEQUENTLY THE FURTHER INVESTIGATION
PURSUANT THERETO ARISING OUT OF
F.NO.ECIR/BGZO/15/2023 REGISTERED BY THE
RESPONDENT/ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, IN SO FAR AS
THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, PRODUCED VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN CRL.P NO.8938/2021:
BETWEEN:
MS. PAVITRA RAMANUJAM
D/O N. RAMANUJAM
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT NO.10/33, SHOBA HOMES
BEACH ROAD, BESANT NAGAR
CHENNAI - 600900
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GAUTHAM S. BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ARJUN A. HEBBAR, ADVOCATE )
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KORAMANGALA POLICE STATION
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD
OPP: VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560001.
- 3 -
WP No. 7336 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 8938 of 2021
2. RAMAMNUJAN A.G.
S/O GOPAL IYENGAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.551, 16 CROSS
TH TH
35 MAIN, 6 PHASE
J.P. NAGAR
BENGALURU – 560078.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED AYUB ALI, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET
DATED 05.01.2021 IN CR.NO.26/2020 FILED BY THE 1st
RESPONDENT/POLICE IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6 IS CONCERNED, FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406, 418, 420,
468, 471, 120B, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC
(PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 07.10.2026, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CAV ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties.
- 4 -
WP No. 7336 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 8938 of 2021
2. Crl.P.No.8938/2021 is filed praying this Court to
quash the charge sheet dated 05.01.2021 in Cr.No.26/2020
filed against this petitioner/accused No.6 for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 418, 420, 468, 471, 120B, 504,
506 read with Section 34 of IPC and also prayed this Court to
quash the order dated 06.01.2021 passed by the Trial Court in
taking cognizance in C.C.No.417/2021 for the aforesaid
offences against this petitioner.
3. The factual matrix of case of the prosecution in
Crl.P.No.8938/2021 is that this petitioner being the Director
along with accused No.1 and accused No.2 being the CEO of
M/s Generis Consulting Services Private Limited have
established the said company in the year 2013 and shifted the
rd th
same to different address at No.708/1, 3 Block, 6 ‘B’ Cross,
Koramangala and also opened an account in CW15 Bank. The
accused Nos.1 and 4 are the children of accused No.2. With an
intention to make illegal money, accused persons conspired
with each other and entered into an agreement with the
Hexagon Motors Company situated at France, QAPI Company,
Kottan Automobile company, Generis Aviation Company and
made the complainant to invest the money in their project with
an assurance of good profit. The complainant also invested the
- 5 -
WP No. 7336 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 8938 of 2021
money with the accused persons. When the complainant went
and requested accused Nos.1, 6 and 7 in 2020 to refund his
investment, at that time, they abused him in a filthy language
and caused the life threat and they withheld the amount of
Rs.5,90,82,467/- and caused loss to CW1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 and
cheated them. Hence, the police, after receiving the complaint,
investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet.
4. The main contention of the counsel appearing for
the petitioner is that the charge sheet discloses that the
accused have cheated the complainant along with his family
members and friends to the tune of Rs.7,10,95,467/- and
charge sheet material and statements of witnesses discloses
that out of that amount, an amount of Rs.6,27,95,467/- was
transferred directly to the personal account of accused No.2
and her daughter and their family members and details are also
given having made the payment and amount was transferred to
the account of accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 and. The counsel also
contend that sum of Rs.83,00,000/- was transferred by MEC
Concepts India Ltd. to M/s Generis Consulting Services Private
Limited and immediately, the said amount was also transferred
to the personal account of accused No.2. Hence, the amount of
Rs.83,00,000/- which was towards the investment was the
- 6 -
WP No. 7336 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 8938 of 2021
subject matter of the case and loan repayment agreement is
dated 24.12.2018 and this agreement was also signed by
accused No.2 only.
5. It is also the case of CW1 that a sum of
Rs.42,50,000/- out of Rs.83,00,000/- is also repaid by accused
No.2. On examination of the bank account of M/s Generis
Consulting Private Limited, it shows that during the period from
01.10.2017 to 30.09.2019, a sum of Rs.49,971/- was credited
to the petitioner's account, whereas on 22.02.2019 and
12.03.2019, she transferred a sum of Rs.75,000/- back to the
company. The counsel also vehemently contend that the
correspondence shows no involvement of this petitioner and
this petitioner is not privy to or even marked to any of the
communications between the de-facto complainant and accused
No.2 and email correspondence would show that there is
correspondence between de-facto complainant and accused
No.2. The counsel would vehemently contend that in the
absence of any specific role or overt act precludes fastening
any criminal liability upon a Director and merely because he is
a Director, he cannot be prosecuted.
- 7 -
WP No. 7336 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 8938 of 2021
6. The counsel in support of his argument also relies
upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SUNIL
BHARTI MITTAL vs CBI reported in (2015) 4 SCC 609 and
brought to notice of this Court paragraphs 43 to 46, wherein an
observation is made in this regard. The counsel also relies upon
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MAKSUD
SAIYED vs STATE OF GUJARAT reported in (2008) 5 SCC
668 and brought to notice of this Court paragraphs 13 and 14.
The counsel also relies upon the judgment in the case of
RAVINDRANATHA BAJPE vs MANGALORE SPECIAL
ECONOMIC ZONE LIMITED AND OTHERS reported in 2022
15 SCC 430 and brought to notice of this Court the discussion
made in paragraphs 8 and 9. The counsel also relies upon the
judgment in the case of SHIV KUMAR JATIA vs STATE OF
NCT OF DELHI reported in (2019) 17 SCC 193 and brought
to notice of this Court paragraphs 21, 22 and 27 wherein
discussion was made with regard to showing active
participation is required even in a case of which he is a
Director. The counsel also relies upon judgment in the case of
SHARAD KUMAR SANGHI vs SANGITA RANI reported in
(2015) 12 SCC 781 and brought to notice of this Court
paragraphs 11 and 13. The counsel also relies upon the
- 8 -
WP No. 7336 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 8938 of 2021
judgment in the case of VIJAY TATA vs ENDORCEMENT
DIRECTORATE AND OTHERS passed in
W.P.No.56732/2018 dated 29.07.2026.
7. The counsel referring these judgments would
vehemently contend that in the absence of any direct and
specific allegation qua petitioner, vicarious liability ought not to
be fastened upon the petitioner for the alleged wrong of the
company, more so, when the company is not even made as an
accused.
8. The counsel also would vehemently contend that
when there are no any essential ingredients of the alleged
offences particularly, with regard to invoking of Sections 406
and 420 of IPC which operate on distinct legal foundations and
cannot be mechanically invoked on the same allegations. In
this regard, the counsel relies upon the judgment in the case of
DELHI RACE CLUB (1940) LTD., vs STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690 and brought to
notice of this Court paragraphs 38 and 39. The counsel also
relies upon the Judgment in the case of ARSHAD NEYAZ
KHAN vs STATE OF JHARKHAND reported in 2025 SCC
- 9 -
WP No. 7336 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 8938 of 2021
ONLINE SC 2058 and brought to notice of this Court
paragraph 21.
9. The counsel would vehemently contend that there
cannot be any prosecution for both the offences of Sections 406
and 420 of IPC. When no specific allegation or material shows
that petitioner has deceived or induced the complainant with
any dishonest intention, the petitioner neither a signatory to
the agreement nor involved in any representation or
inducement, there cannot be any prosecution. In support of this
argument, the counsel also relies upon the judgment in the
case of VESA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., vs STATE OF KERALA
reported in (2015) 8 SCC 293 and brought to notice of this
Court paragraphs 12 and 13 wherein discussion was made in
this regard. The counsel also relies upon the judgment of this
Court in the case of SATHISH KUMAR S vs STATE OF
KARNATAKA passed in Crl.P.No.10436/2023 dated
12.01.2024.
10. The counsel also vehemently contend that when the
offences under Sections 468 and 471 of IPC were invoked,
there must be a material or averment or any allegation made
even in the charge sheet stating that this petitioner herein had
- 10 -
WP No. 7336 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 8938 of 2021
committed an offence of forgery. But there is no material in the
case on hand. In this regard, the counsel relies upon the
judgment in the case of MOHD. IBRAHIM vs STATE OF
BIHAR reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 and brought to notice
of this Court paragraphs 13, 14, 21, 24 and 29.
11. The other contention urged by the petitioner
counsel is that in order to invoke Section 504 and 506 of IPC,
there must be intentional insult and criminal intimidation. The
allegations of intentional insult or criminal intimidations, if at
all, are specifically attributable only to accused Nos.2 an 4 and
the charge sheet discloses that there is no specific act, threat
or intention on the part this petitioner. In this regard, the
counsel relies upon the judgment in the case of VIKRAM
JOHAR vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in (2019)
14 SCC 207 and brought to notice of this Court paragraphs 19,
20, 23 and 25 with regard to the ingredients of the offences.
12. The main contention of the counsel appearing for
the petitioner is that the Trial Court committed an error in
taking cognizance and the same is a mechanical and without
any application of mind. The Trial Court fails to examine that
whether any specific allegation is made out against this
- 11 -
WP No. 7336 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 8938 of 2021
petitioner is concerned or not. Hence, the counsel vehemently
contend that this Court has to exercise the powers under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C even after filing of charge sheet to
prevent the abuse of process of law. In support of this
contention, the counsel relies upon the judgment in the case of
ANAND KUMAR MOHATTA vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706 and brought to notice of this
Court the discussion made in paragraphs 14 to 16.
13. The counsel referring these judgments prays this
Court to quash the proceedings initiated against this petitioner.
14. In W.P.No.7336/2026, the counsel for the petitioner
prays this Court to quash the e-mail/summons dated
19.02.2026 issued by the Enforcement Directorate and further
investigation pursuant thereto arising out of
F.No.ECIR/BGZO/15/2023 registered by the Enforcement
Directorate.
15. The counsel for the petitioner in support of his
arguments, relies upon the judgment reported in VIJAY
MADANLAL CHOUDHARY vs UNION OF INDIA reported in
(2023) 12 SCC 1 wherein discussion was made with regard to
the proceeds of crime without a crime. The counsel also relies
- 12 -
WP No. 7336 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 8938 of 2021
upon the judgment in the case of MS. C UMA REDDY AND
OTHRS vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND OTHERS
in W.P.NO.19337/2022 , wherein also considered the
question if an investigation under the PML Act can be permitted
to continue when there is an interim order of stay relating to
the predicate offence. The counsel also vehemently contend
that in the connected matter, already there was a stay and
allegations are also very vague against this petitioner. As per
the allegations in the predicate offence, the petitioner is not
aware of the alleged transaction. The entire allegations have
been levelled against one Sri. Anirudh and not the petitioner
herein. The written first information and the final report in the
said case categorically indicate that petitioner is not involved in
the offences which have been alleged. Hence, there cannot be
any investigation by the respondent against this petitioner.
16. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respective
respondents would vehemently contend that this petitioner is
accused No.6. The company was started in the year 2013 and
this petitioner was the Director of the said company. The
counsel also vehemently contends that document clearly
discloses that there was an agreement between the parties.
The counsel also contends that accused No.2 is the CEO and
- 13 -
WP No. 7336 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 8938 of 2021
she was authorized to represent the company. The counsel also
relies upon the certificate of incorporation produced before the
Court. The counsel vehemently contend that this petitioner is
having the major share of 50% and the same is also not
disputed. The transaction is between the period of 2018 to
2020. The accusation made against this petitioner also that she
had looking after the company affairs and being the major
shareholder, authorized accused No.2 to deal with the company
affairs. Even after the registration of the FIR against this
petitioner as well as others, has not taken any decision by this
petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the
allegation is only against accused No.2 and this petitioner has
not having any knowledge about the company affairs there is
no role of this petitioner in the alleged offence cannot be
accepted. The counsel brought to notice of this Court that
payment was made in favour of the company to the tune of
Rs.83,00,000/- and not dispute the said payment. All the
investment made by the charge sheet witnesses was also
utilized by the company. Though it is the case of the petitioner
that only accused No.2 has utilized the money by immediately
transferring the amount to her account, but the fact that
accused No.2 is CEO and authorized to represent the company
- 14 -
WP No. 7336 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 8938 of 2021
is not in dispute. The counsel also contends that the writ
petition is arises out of issuance of summons by the
respondent/Enforcement Directorate. If this Court comes to the
conclusion that matter requires to be tried, the writ petition
also will not survive.
17. The counsel for the respective parties have made
the very same submission. Hence, taken up both the matters
together.
18. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and also on perusal of the material on
record, it discloses that the complaint was filed immediately
when the complainant came to know that accused persons did
not come forward to repay the amount. It has to be noted that
having registered the FIR in Crime No.26/2020 based on the
complaint dated 01.02.2020, the police have registered the
case and investigated the matter. In the complaint, the specific
allegations are made particularly against accused Nos.1 and 2
that both of them forced the complainant and others to invest
in their company and their personal accounts promising good
returns to them and they have also invested the money. During
the course of investigation, it discloses that all of them have
- 15 -
WP No. 7336 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 8938 of 2021
involved in indulging such act and specific charges are also
made including the threat and abuse when the charge sheet
witnesses have approached this petitioner and others.
19. It is also important to note that the counsel
appearing for the respondent brought to notice of this Court
that the maximum share of this petitioner is 50% when the
company was started in 2013. The same is not disputed by the
petitioner. The fact that accused No.2 is the CEO of the said
company and the same is also not in dispute. The only
contention taken by the petitioner counsel that amount was
paid to the tune of Rs.6,27,95,467/- in favour of accused No.2
and payment was made in favour of the company is only to the
tune of Rs.83,00,000/- and the same was also immediately
transferred to the account of accused No.2. Hence, it is very
clear that amount was invested and the same was not refunded
inspite of there is an agreement between the parties. When the
specific accusation is made and also this petitioner being the
50% major shareholder, the very contention of the counsel for
the petitioner that the correspondence not shows any
involvement of the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is also to
be noted that during the period from 01.10.2017 to
30.09.2019, as admittedly, some amount was credited to the
- 16 -
WP No. 7336 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 8938 of 2021
petitioner's account. Though it is contented that the same was
repaid and no specific role of overt act precludes fastening the
criminal liability upon this petitioner who is the Director cannot
be accepted.
20. No doubt, the judgments which have been relied
SUNIL BHARTI
upon by the petitioner’s counsel in the case of
MITTAL; MAKSUD SAIYED; SHARAD KUMAR SANGHI
referred supra is very clear that in the absence of any direct
and specific allegation qua the petitioner, there cannot be any
vicarious liability. The fact that when this petitioner having
major share of 50% and accused No.2 is only a CEO who was
authorized by the company and dealt with the amount invested
by the charge sheet witnesses and whether there are essential
ingredients of the alleged offences to invoke Sections 406 and
420 against this petitioner or not is a matter of trial to know
that whether with an intention to cheat, at the inception made
them to invest the money is purely a mixed question of fact
and law for consideration during the course of trial.
21. The other contention that this petitioner had not
indulged in any creation of document, thus, invoking of
offences under Sections 468 and 471 of IPC does not arise. So
- 17 -
WP No. 7336 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 8938 of 2021
also, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that
accused Nos.2 and 4 only made the threat and insult and this
aspect also could be considered during the course of trial not at
the stage of invoking of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
No doubt, there is no dispute with regard to the principle laid
down in the judgment of ANAND KUMAR MOHATTA vs
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) decided on 15.11.2018
that even while consideration of the charge sheet, the powers
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C also can be exercised. The fact is
that the company was started in 2013 and transaction was
made. But the dispute arise between the parties is only in 2020
that too when the demand was made to refund the amount,
threat was caused and abused and also not refunded the
amount of crores of rupees. When the specific allegations are
made in the complaint dated 01.02.2020 alleging the
involvement of this petitioner who has invested 50% of the
share in the company, it cannot contend that the Director of
the company cannot be prosecuted for vicarious liability.
Hence, the judgments which relied upon by the petitioner's
counsel will not come to the aid of the petitioner.
22. It is also not in dispute that transaction was taken
place in between 2018 to 2020. Though, the counsel for the
- 18 -
WP No. 7336 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 8938 of 2021
petitioner contend that only accused No.2 used the money, the
Court has to take note that when the authorization was given
to accused No.2-CEO and not disputed the payment by the
complainant and charge sheet witnesses. Thus, the matter
requires full fledged trial. Hence, I do not find any grounds to
entertain the petition exercising the powers under Section 482
of Cr.P.C and quash the proceedings as sought in the petition.
23. The writ petition is also filed praying this Court to
quash the proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate
against the petitioner. When this Court comes to the conclusion
that petitioner along with other accused persons have indulged
in such act and the offence is also predicative offence and the
matter requires trial, the question of entertaining the writ
petition also does not arise. Both the counsel made the
submission that writ petition is also subject to the predicate
offence as a result of the Crl.P.No.8938/2021, the same also
does not survive for consideration.
24. The counsel appearing for the petitioner also
vehemently contend that the Trial Court has committed an
error in issuing the summons by taking cognizance and the
order is mechanical. The said contention cannot be accepted
- 19 -
WP No. 7336 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 8938 of 2021
since the Trial Court while considering the matter perused the
charge sheet material and proceeded to take the cognizance in
coming to the conclusion that the matter requires trial.
25. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The Crl.P.No. 8938/2021 is dismissed.
Consequently, granting of the relief in favour of the
petitioner in the writ petition also does not survive for
consideration as the predicative offence. Hence, the
W.P.No.7336/2026 is also dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN