Revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to conduct a roving inquiry or reappreciate evidence at the charge-framing stage.

The petitioner, a 51% shareholder and director in M/s Hard Rock Pvt. Ltd., was accused by the respondent/complainant (a 49% shareholder) of forging signatures on two board resolutions in early 2023.

These resolutions reportedly allowed the petitioner to operate the company’s bank account unilaterally, bypassing the joint-signature mandate required by the company's Articles of Association.

The prosecution alleged the petitioner subsequently siphoned approximately Rs. 1.80 Crores for personal gain.

Following a police investigation and forensic report, the Trial Court rejected the petitioner’s prayer for discharge and framed charges under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC.

The petitioner moved the High Court in revision, asserting the transactions were legitimate business activities and the dispute was civil in nature.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in framing charges despite the petitioner's claim of lacking mens rea and the existence of a concurrent civil dispute.

2. Whether a prima facie case for forgery and criminal breach of trust exists given the forensic evidence and the restrictive mandates of the company’s Articles of Association.

The court applied Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the limited supervisory scope of revisional jurisdiction, which prohibits a "roving inquiry" at the charge-framing stage.

It relied on the principle from Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, which mandates framing charges when "grave suspicion" exists against the accused.

The court also applied Section 409 (Criminal breach of trust by public servant/banker/agent) and Section 420 (Cheating) of the IPC, distinguishing their application based on the chronological progression of the alleged fraud.

Furthermore, it cited Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, establishing that complex forensic evaluations and evidentiary defenses are matters for trial rather than revisionary discharge.

The court reasoned that the scope of a revision is limited to correcting patent illegalities rather than re-appreciating evidence.

It found that Clause 62 of the company’s Articles of Association explicitly required joint signatures, a mandate the petitioner allegedly circumvented through forged resolutions.

The court noted that the forensic report confirming handwriting divergences provided sufficient grounds for "grave suspicion," satisfying the threshold for trial.

The High Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on pending civil litigation, noting that the civil suit involved a separate legal entity and did not negate the criminal allegations of forgery and misappropriation in the present case.

The court determined that the sequence of events—altering the bank mandate followed by the transfer of funds—sufficiently established distinct prima facie offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust.

The court held that a strong prima facie case existed based on the unauthorized circumvention of corporate mandates and forensic findings.

The Trial Court was directed to proceed with the trial independently of the observations made in the revision order.