Facts
Respondent No. 2 complained that accused Nos. 1 and 4 had forged his resignation from the directorship of Vinyas Constructions Private Limited and filed Form DIR-12 with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, after which the petitioner was appointed as a director.
Source reference: pp. 4–6, paras 7–10The police registered a case and charge-sheeted the petitioner as accused No. 5 for offences including conspiracy, cheating, forgery and offences under the Information Technology Act.
Source reference: pp. 6, 12–13, paras 11–12, 28The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings, contending that there was no material showing his participation in the alleged forgery or conspiracy.
Source reference: no citationThe High Court noted that he had received no salary or perquisites and had resigned from the directorship on 11 June 2019.
Source reference: pp. 13–14, paras 29–32Issues
1. Whether the charge-sheet disclosed prima facie material connecting the petitioner with the alleged forgery, fraud or other charged offences.
Source reference: pp. 15–17, paras 33, 40–432. Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for want of material and as an abuse of process.
Source reference: pp. 17–19, paras 44–49Law Applied
The Court considered the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash proceedings where continuation would amount to an abuse of process.
Source reference: pp. 18–19, paras 47–49Relying on Mohd. Khalid v. State of West Bengal, (2002) 7 SCC 334, it recognised that conspiracy may be inferred from available evidence and need not be established by direct or positive evidence, but held that there must still be material prima facie indicating the accused’s role in the conspiracy.
Source reference: pp. 16–17, paras 38–40The Court also referred to Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2026) 7 SCC 339, on the parameters for quashing a charge-sheet.
Source reference: p. 18, paras 45–47It further treated wrongful gain or corresponding wrongful loss as necessary to proceed against the petitioner for cheating under Section 420 IPC.
Source reference: p. 15, para 35Reasoning
The Court found that the allegations and collected material attributed the alleged forgery and misuse of digital signatures to accused Nos. 1 and 4.
Source reference: pp. 12–17, paras 25–28, 33, 40–43As to the petitioner, the charge-sheet contained only general assertions of collusion and conspiracy, without documentary or other material showing his participation in removing respondent No. 2 or procuring his own appointment.
Source reference: pp. 12–17, paras 25–28, 33, 40–43The petitioner’s appointment, without more, did not establish a conspiratorial role; the Court also noted that he received no salary or perquisites and later resigned.
Source reference: pp. 13–15, paras 29–35It therefore found no prima facie basis to proceed against him for the alleged IPC and IT Act offences, and considered continuation of the case an abuse of process.
Source reference: pp. 17–19, paras 41–49Holding
The petition was allowed.
The proceedings in C.C. No. 164/2021, arising from Crime No. 311/2018, were quashed insofar as the petitioner was concerned.
Source reference: p. 19, para 50(i)–(ii)The Court clarified that its observations would not affect the case against the other accused.
Source reference: p. 20, para 50(iii)Acts & Sections Cited
13 provisions across 3 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Information Technology Act, 20002
Original Court PDF
SRI NAGARAJA VvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
