AKASH KUMAR ROSE vs THE STATE

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61103
CRL.P No. 1273 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010073312024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K


CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1273 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

1. AKASH KUMAR ROSE
S/O LATE GADVIN ROSE,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/A M/S AKASANDRA CONSULTANTS PVT LTD,
NO.30, 31, NEAR HENNUR BANDE,
KALYAN NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE-560 043.

2. VENKATESH BABU
S/O PRASSANNA GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT,
NO. 93/1, 2ND FLOOR,
TH
7 CROSS, CHAMRAJPET,
BANGALORE-560 018.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. DILRAJ JUDE ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE
BY HENNUR P.S
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560 001.

2. ALEKSANDRA ROTAR
D/O ALEKSANDAR ROTAR,










Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61103
CRL.P No. 1273 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010073312024



AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/A NO. C1304,
ORCHID WOODS APARTMENT,
HENNUR BAGALUR MAIN ROAD,
KOTHANOOR,
BANGALORE-560 077
9886135901
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAVEED S, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. B.S. RAGHU PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE COMPLIANT, FIR IN CR.NO.376/2022 PERTAINING
TO HENNUR POLICE STATION, ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET IN
C.C.NO.59560/2023 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S.420,465,471 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE COURT OF 11 ACMM AT
BENGALURU.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a memo
dated 09.10.2026, which reads as under:
"Undersigned counsel for the petitioner
humbly submits that kindly permit that petitioner
to withdraw the present petition in respect of
petitioner No.1, as he is died and grant liberty to
file fresh petition if circumstances arise in the
interest of justice and equity."


- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61103
CRL.P No. 1273 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010073312024




2. In view of the memo, the petition is dismissed as
withdrawn in respect of petitioner No.1/accused No.1.
AS REGARDS PETITIONER NO.2/ACCUSED NO.2,
THE MATTER IS TAKEN UP FOR CONSIDERATION AS
UNDER:
3. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to
quash the proceedings against petitioner No.2/accused No.2 in
C.C.No.59560/2023, arising out of Crime No.376/2022,
registered by Hennur Police, for the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 465 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC,
pending on the file XI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at
Bangalore.
4. The brief facts of the case are, respondent No.2
lodged a complaint before respondent No.1-Police on
16.12.2022 alleging that she is the wife of petitioner No.1. It is
alleged in the complaint that she was one of the Directors of
the Company called Akasandra Consultants Private Limited. The
company is registered as per the provisions of Company
Registration Act. It is stated that the marriage between
respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 was ended up by decree of

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61103
CRL.P No. 1273 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010073312024



divorce in the year 2016. On 02.08.2021, respondent No.2
resigned from the Directorship of the above Company. After
rendering her resignation, petitioner No.1 was handling the
affairs of the Company. Despite the clear instruction from
respondent No.2 not to transfer her shares, petitioner No.2
forged her signature and transferred 100 shares out of 5000
shares to the account of petitioner No.1. Later, he promised to
return the amount. When respondent No.2 asked petitioner
No.1 to make a sign on the final settlement agreement, he
rejected the offer of respondent No.2. The act of petitioner
No.1 was supported by petitioner No.2/accused No.2, who was
the Chartered Accountant of the Company. Petitioner No.2, by
knowing fully that the signature of respondent No.2 was forged
by petitioner No.1, transferred the shares of the Company to
the account of petitioner No.1.

5. On the strength of the said complaint, FIR came to
be registered in Crime No.376/2022 dated 16.12.2022 for the
aforementioned offences. Subsequently, respondent No.1-Police
investigated the case and laid charge sheet against the
petitioners, by arraying the petitioner as accused No.2 for the

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61103
CRL.P No. 1273 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010073312024



aforementioned offences. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate
took cognizance of the offences. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner/accused No.2 preferred this petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties.

7. The primary contention of learned counsel for
petitioner No.2 is, he being the Chartered Accountant, had no
knowledge about the alleged forgery committed by petitioner
No.1, who is none other than the former husband of respondent
No.2. According to him, petitioner No.2 on the impression that
respondent No.2 being the wife of accused No.1, signed the
documents for transfer of shares to the account of accused
No.1. Accordingly, he proceeded to transfer without any such
intention of either cheating or forgery. As such, continuation of
proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of Court.
Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

8. The prayer is opposed by learned counsel for
respondent No.2 on the ground that the marriage of accused
No.1 and respondent No.2 was dissolved way back in the year
2016. Subsequently, she resigned from the Directorship of the

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61103
CRL.P No. 1273 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010073312024



company in the year 2021. Thereafter, though fully aware of
said aspect, petitioner No.2, being the Chartered Accountant,
transferred the shares belonging to respondent No.2 without
her consent to the account of accused No.1. As such, there is a
clear collusion between accused No.1 and petitioner No.2. By
placing reliance on FSL report, he contended that the act of
forgery is clearly substantiated in the report that the signature
of respondent No.2 was forged. In such circumstances, there is
prima facie case made out against petitioners. As such, the
proceedings cannot be quashed against him. Accordingly, he
prays to dismiss the petition.

9. Learned HCGP also opposed the prayer of the
petitioner on similar grounds.

10. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and
perused the documents made available on record.

11. As could be gathered from the complaint and
charge sheet material, accused No.1 and respondent No.2 were
husband and wife and they started the company called

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61103
CRL.P No. 1273 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010073312024



Akasandra Consultancy Private Limited and MOU was also
executed between them and it was agreed that they both are
the joint shareholders. In the year 2016, due to the strained
relationship, their marriage was dissolved. Subsequently, she
continued in the company for a period of 5 years till 2021.
Later, she resigned from the Directorship of the company.
Thereafter, she found that her 100 shares in the said company
were transferred to the account of accused No.1 without her
knowledge or consent, by forging her signature. According to
charge sheet averments, petitioner No.2, being the Chartered
Account, though had knowledge of the same, transferred the
shares to the account of accused No.1 and thereby shared
common intention. Later, he also filed the balance sheets to the
Income Tax Department. As such, common intention of accused
No.1 is proved. Admittedly, the signature of respondent No.2
was forged by accused No.1. Further, FSL report reveals that
the admitted signature of respondent No.2 and the disputed
signature on the documents do not tally, as such, there is
element of forgery.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61103
CRL.P No. 1273 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010073312024



12. Quashing the criminal proceedings is called for only
in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or
is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out
in the complaint do not constitute offence of which cognizance
has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open for this Court to
quash the same. It is not necessary that a meticulous analysis
of case should be done before trial to find out whether the case
would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading
of the complaint and consideration of the allegation therein, in
the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of
the offence are disclosed there would be no justification for this
Court to interfere as held in the case of SAU. KAMAL SHIVAJI
POKARNEKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND
OTHERS reported in 2019 (14) SCC 350.

13. In the instant case, the charge-sheet materials
disclose a prima facie case against petitioner No.2/accused
No.2 for the offences he had been charge sheeted. In such
circumstance, the same has to be tested in a detailed trial.
Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61103
CRL.P No. 1273 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010073312024



case, suffice to hold that the proceedings cannot be quashed
against petitioner No.2/accused No.2, at this stage.
14. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, is
dismissed .




SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE

HKV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18