Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 19855 (KAR)

APEKSHA V KATTI v. SMT SUNITHA PATIL

CRL.P/2720/2024 · 2025-02-05

S R Krishna Kumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5745 CRL.P No. 2720 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2720 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: APEKSHA V KATTI W/O RAGHUVER S GOWDA, D/O VISHWANATHKATTI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, APEKSHA N H C S LAYOUT, 3rd STAGE, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 079. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NEHRU M N.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT SUNITHA PATIL W/O LATE P H PATIL AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 2. SANJANA P PATIL D/O LATE P H PATIL, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, 3. SAMEEKSHA P PATIL W/O LATE P H PATIL, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER (i.e., RESPONDENT NO.1) ALL R/AT NO. 351/B , 2nd STAGE, WEST OF CORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BAGNALORE 560 086. 4. STATION HOUSE OFFICER BASAVESHWARANAGAR POLICE STATION, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 079. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KRUTIKA RAGHAVAN.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NANDINI D Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5745 CRL.P No. 2720 of 2024 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.08.2014 PASSED IN C.C.NO.19101/2013 BY THE HONBLE IV ACMM BENGALURU AND DROP THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.6/PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.19101/2013 WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.406,420,465 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE 4th ACMM BENGALURU AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-69) DATED 24.01.2024 IN CRL.RP.NO.692/2017.I.A.NO.1/2024 FOR STAY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following relief: “ WHEREFORE, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased call for records in C.C.No.19101/2013 by the Hon’ble IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore and be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated: 02.08.2014 passed in C.C.No.19101/2013 which is registered for the offences under Section 406, 420, 465 R/w 34 of IPC on the file of 4th ACMM Bangalore and further be pleased to set-aside the order passed by the LXVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore (CCH-69) dated: 24.01.2024 in Crl.Rev.Pet. No.692/2017 and further be pleased pass such other relief/s which is deemed fit in the facts and circumstances in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.6 and learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 3 – complainants as - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5745 CRL.P No. 2720 of 2024 well as learned HCGP for respondent No.4 – Police and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent Nos.1 to 3 - complainants filed a private complaint against 7 accused persons including petitioner-accused No.6 for offences punishable under Sections 465, 406 and 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The said private complaint was registered as PCR No.18818/2007 and referred to respondent No.4 for investigation by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 11.12.2007 pursuant to which, respondent No.4-Police filed a ‘B’ report which was challenged by respondent Nos.1 to 3-complainants, who filed a protest petition which was dismissed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 03.03.2009 thereby accepting the ‘B’ report. Aggrieved by the said order dated 03.03.2009, respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed Crl.R.P.No.162/2009, which was allowed by the Sessions Court vide final order dated 07.09.2009, thereby setting aside the order of the Magistrate and remitting the matter back to him with a direction to record the sworn statement and to proceed further in accordance with law. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5745 CRL.P No. 2720 of 2024 4. In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 07.09.2009, passed by the Sessions Court, learned Magistrate passed an order dated 09.10.2013 taking cognizance of the offences and registering criminal proceedings in C.C.No.19101/2013 against the accused persons. In this context, it is the specific contention of respondent Nos.1 to 3-complainants that though the body of the said order dated 09.10.2013 indicates that the learned Magistrate was taking cognizance of the offences against all 7 accused persons including petitioner – accused No.6, the operative portion of the said order states that cognizance was being taken only as against accused Nos.1 to 3 and not against accused Nos.4 to 7 including petitioner- accused No.6. Under these circumstances, respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed an application under Section 362 of Cr.P.C (wrongly invoking Section 190(1) of Cr.P.C) seeking correction of the said typographical/clerical error in the operative portion of the order dated 09.10.2013 passed by the learned Magistrate. 5. In pursuance of the said application filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 02.08.2014 rectifying the operative portion of the said order dated 09.10.2013 and thereby, directing taking of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5745 CRL.P No. 2720 of 2024 cognizance and registration of C.C.No.19101/2013 against all 7 accused persons including petitioner-accused No.6 and by further directing issuance of NBW to accused Nos.1 to 3 and issuing summons to accused Nos.4 to 7 including petitioner-accused No.6. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order dated 02.08.2014 passed by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No.692/2014 before the Sessions Court which proceeded to dismiss the revision petition vide impugned order dated 24.01.2024. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 02.08.2014 passed by the learned Magistrate and the impugned order dated 24.01.2024 passed in Crl.R.P.No.692/2017 by the Sessions Court, petitioner – accused No.6 is before this Court by way of the present petition. 7. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it is necessary to state that under Section 362 of Cr.P.C, it is permissible for the learned Magistrate to correct and rectify typographical/clerical errors/mistakes as well as errors apparent on the face of the record arising out of/or accruing from an accidental slip or omission. In this context, it is relevant to state that subsequent to the matter being remanded by the Sessions Court in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5745 CRL.P No. 2720 of 2024 Crl.R.P.No.692/2017 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3-complainants remitting the matter back to the learned Magistrate for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law, the learned Magistrate passed an order dated 09.10.2013 rejecting the ‘B’ report and coming to the conclusion that prima facie all accused persons are said to have committed the alleged offences warranting taking of cognizance against all the accused persons including the petitioner- accused No.6 by holding as under: ORDER IN ISSUING PROCESS AND ‘B’ REPORT “The complainant has filed private complaint against accused No.1 to 7 alleging the offences punishable u/s.406, 420, 441 and 463 r/w 34 of IPC. After the complaint was referred u/s.156(3) of the Cr.P.C. the police filed the B-report. Challenging the same the complainants filed protest petition and thereafter my learned predecessor recorded sworn statement of the first complaint by receiving affidavit for the same and passed an order accepting the B-report. In the Crl.R.P. No.162/2009 filed against the said order, the Hon'ble FTC-IV by order dezed 7./9.2009 set aside the order and remanded the matter for recording the sworn statement in regular course and to decide the matter in accordance with law. Thereafter the first complaint tendered sworn statement as PW1 on 5.12.2009, 20.3.2010, 24.4.2010, 19.6.2010, 31.7.2010, 21.4.2012, 26.5.2012 and 24.11.2012. She produced Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.66 documents. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5745 CRL.P No. 2720 of 2024 2. Heard arguments of the counsel for the complainant. 3. The following points arise for my consideration: 1) Whether the B-report filed in this case is liable to be rejected and the process should be ordered to the accused by registering criminal case?? 2) What order? My findings on the above points are: Point No. 1: In the affirmative. Point No.2: As per the final order for the following: REASONS 5. Point No.1: When the complaint was filed, the complainants 2 and 3 were minors and they were represented by their mother the first complaint. According to the complainants, the first complainant's deceased husband and the father of complainants 2 and 3 Late P.H.Patil and Viswanatha Katti the 4th accused were close friends. Late P.H.Patil and 4th accused's wife the second accused started a partnership business in the name and style of M/s. Guardwell Detective Services Pvt. Ltd., on 25.8.1988 and deed of partnership was executed on 3.9.1990 wherein two more partners the accused No.3 and one Ashok Kumar were inducted into the firm. The 3rd accused is the sister of the second accused. It is stated that, another partnership deed dated 1.4.1992 was entered into by the partners by making certain amendments. The partnership firm carried on the business of providing security and detective services to its customers. The - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5745 CRL.P No. 2720 of 2024 business flourished well and had extended its business in Chennai and Hyderabad and established good will. In February 2000 P.H.Patil sufferred major heart attack and was admitted to Wackhardt Hospital and he developed acute appendicitis and underwent surgery. Later he was diagnosed to be suffering from Carcinoma. He was treated at Panacea Hospital, Mahaveer Jain Hospital and several other hospitals. Because of his prolonged illness his active involvement in are took care of the business activities. When P.H.Patil was in firms business reduced. The 4th accused and the other 2 hospital in good faith he signed several documents blindly. The complainants learnt that, another partnership deed was recorded on 21.5.2003 because of one of the partner by name Ashok Kumar retiring from the firm. But though the said deed was executed only to record retirement of Ashok Kumar, several other term not connected to retirement was also incorporated and the signature of Late P.H.Patil was forged in the said partnership deed by the accused persons. The partnership firm had paid Rs.8 Lakhs towards security deposit and was paying monthly rent of Rs.50,000/- to the landlord in respect of the premises which had been taken on lease to runt the office of the firm. The firm had several vehicles, more than 350 customers, more than 30 employees and also security guards. It had bank accounts and phone connections. The balance sheet of the firm for the year ending 31.3.2001 showed the turn over of the firm as Rs.6,48,13,307.81 and the written down value of the fixed asset of the firm as Rs.1,91,05,834.30. For the year ending 31.3.2002 the turnover was Rs.8,21,26,142/- as per - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5745 CRL.P No. 2720 of 2024 the balance sheet. P.H.patil died on 2.11.2005 and thereafter the complainants being his legal heirs approached the accused no.2 to 4 to admit them as partners in the firm. But the accused persons declined to do so. Thereafter the accused in collusion with each other misappropriated and converted the assets, the goodwill business and the profits of the firm to themselves to the exclusion of the complainants. In 2001 the accused promoted another company in the same name as the complainants firm viz. Guard Wel. Detective Service Pvt. Ltd., and the 4th accused became the Managing Director, the 5th accused who is the daughter of accused No.2 and 4 and the 6th accused the brother of the 4th accused an another accused No.7 a relative of the second accused became the Directors and share holders of the said Company. The accused misused the similarity in the names of the firm to the newly floated company. The accused manipulated balance sheet for the year ending 31.3.2004. The complainant filed an application u/s.9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1995 before the 6th Addl City Civil Judge, Bangalore city in AA No.16/2007 and the accused filed a frivolous suit in Os No.17597/2006 to prevent the complainants from entering into the firms premises. It is stated that, the accused have committed criminal breach of trust, forgery and cheating. 6. The first complainant in her sworn statement has reiterated the said facts. She states that, the signature in Ex.P.11 partnership deed attributed to her husband has been forged by the accused persons. She also states that, - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5745 CRL.P No. 2720 of 2024 the accused have taken away all the movables etc. of the first in which her husband was partner to the newly floated company by the accused persons when the firm was still in existence and thereby they have misappropriated the same. Although in normal course the offence of criminal breach of trust is not attracted to a partner, the circumstances and allegations made in the complaint show that accused No.4 was the CEO and he has taken away all the movables, vehicles etc. of the firm in connivance with other accused and misappropriated the same by taking the same to the company formed in their name. The allegations also prima facie show an allegation of cheating in the case. At present there are no reasons to suspect the sworn statement averments and complaint averments and hence they prima facie show that, the accused have committed the offences u/s:465, 406 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC. Therefore, the 'B' report needs to be ignored and process will have to be ordered against the accused. Consequently, Point No.1 answered in the affirmative. 7. Point No.2: In view of my finding to the above point, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Register criminal case against accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable u/s.406, 420 and 465 r/w 34 of IPC. Issue summons to accused No.1 to 3 if PF is paid and witness list is filed.” - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:5745 CRL.P No. 2720 of 2024 8. As is clear from the aforesaid order dated 09.10.2013, though the learned Magistrate recorded categorical findings for the purpose of taking cognizance against all accused persons including petitioner-accused No.6, in the operative portion of the said order, the learned Magistrate directed registration of criminal case in C.C.No.19101/2013 only as against accused Nos.1 to 3 and not against accused Nos.4 to 7. In fact, in the entire body of the order, the learned Magistrate has recorded clear findings that it was necessary to reject the ‘B’ report which had exonerated all accused persons and that the facts of case on hand warranted rejection of the ‘B’ report and take cognizance against all accused persons including petitioner-accused No.6. Under these circumstances, in pursuance of the application dated 15.03.2014 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 complainants, the Trial Court was fully justified in allowing the application, thereby directing correction of the operative portion of the order dated 09.10.2013, which was not only contrary to the findings recorded in the body of the order but also the letter and spirit of the said order, whereby the learned Magistrate categorically held that it was necessary to take cognizance against all 7 accused persons including petitioner – accused No.6 by holding as under:- - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:5745 CRL.P No. 2720 of 2024 ORDER ON PETITION U/S 190(1) OF CR.P.C. The counsel for the complainant has filed this application to issue process against accused No.4 to also. On the previous date of hearing the court has taken cognizance of the offences punishable U/s 405, 420, 441, 463 120(a) r/w Sec. 149 of IPC. But the summons was not issued to accused No.4 to due to typographical error. As such the summons be issued to accused No.4 to 7. Perusal of the entire order sheet reveals that my predecessor in office has taken the cognizance of the offences punishable U/s 406, 420, 465 r/w 34 of IPC. The entire discussion of the order reveals the accused are addressed in plural. There is a reference of accused No.4 also. Therefore under these circumstances of the application deserved to be allowed. Hence this following. ORDER Office is directed to register same criminal case against accused No.4 to 7 also for the offences punishable U/s 406, 465, r/w 34 of IPC. Re issue NBW to accused No.1 to 3, issue Summons accused No.4 to 7 if PF is paid. Returnable by 11.11.20014. 9. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that though the aforesaid application for correction of the aforesaid typographical / clerical error was filed by respondents 1 to 3 by invoking Section 190(1) Cr.P.C., apart from the fact that the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:5745 CRL.P No. 2720 of 2024 substance of the contentions urged in the said application would clearly indicate that the respondents 1 to 3 were actually / factually invoking Section 362 Cr.P.C., in the light of the well settled position of law that mere citing of a wrong provision cannot result or lead to rejection of an otherwise valid and proper claim, the said contention urged on behalf of petitioner cannot be accepted. 10. As stated supra, the petitioner – accused No.6 having been aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 02.08.2014 passed by the learned Magistrate, filed Crl.R.P.No.692/2017 which was contested by respondents 1 to 3 and ultimately dismissed by the Sessions Court vide final order dated 24.01.2024 by holding as under:- ORDERS This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner U/Sec.397 r/w 399 of Cr.P.C to set-aside the impugned order passed by IV ACMM, Bangalore, in C.C.No. 19101/2013, dated 02.08.2014, and drop the further proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.6 in C.C.No.19101/2013 which is registered for the offences U/Secs.406, 420, 465 r/w 34 of I.P.C. by allowing the Criminal Revision petition, in the interest of justice and equity. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:5745 CRL.P No. 2720 of 2024 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that, the respondents No.1 to 3 have filed a private complaint U/Sec.200 r/w 190 and 199 of Cr.P.C, on 11.12.2007 against 7 accused persons before IV ACMM, Bengaluru, for the offences U/Secs.406, 420, 441, 463, 120A r/w Sec.149 of I.P.C. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint to respondent No.4 Police Station for investigation U/Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, private complaint was filed which was numbered as P.C.R.No.18818/2007 and thereafter, respondent No.4 Police Station registered FIR on 31.12.2007 in Cr.No.435/2007 and subsequently, the respondent No.4 after investigation filed 'B' report in which it is clearly reflects that the entire allegation is civil in nature. In the said complaint and FIR, the petitioner is cited as accused No.6. It is submitted in the private complaint, that respondent No.1 is the wife of Late P.H.Patil and respondents No.2 and 3 are the children of Late P.H.Patil. During the life time of P.H.Patil, P.H.Patil and accused No.2 started partnership firm on 25.08.1988 in the name and style as "M/s. Guardwell Detectives Services" at Mariyappanapalya, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru, for providing security and detective services to its customers. P.H.Patil appointe accused No.4 as CEO of the said firm and accused No.3 and 2 and one Ashok Kumar were inducted as partners to the said firm on 01.04.1992. With the efforts of late P.H.Patil, the firm was flourished and increased many folds and the firm established its business in Chennai and Hyderabad and accumulated for itself considerable goodwill. The name "Guardwell Services" over a period of - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:5745 CRL.P No. 2720 of 2024 time became very much reputed brand name and substantial goodwill came to be attached to the name. Later in the month of February 2020, said Sri.P.H.Patil, had suffered major heart attack and he was admitted in Wockhard hospital and Heart Institute and was diagnosed to be suffering from blockages in two valves and ultimately diagnosed to be suffering from Carcionma (Cancer) Lung with bone mets for symptomatic treatment and he had to undergo Chemotherapy at regular intervals. Due to his prolonged physical ailments, he active involvement in the firm's business had reduced considerably and it was taken care by accused Nos.2 to 4. During the period of illness, accused Nos. 1 to 3 used to take signatures of P.H.Patil on several documents and in good faith P.H.Patil has signed on several documents blindly. It is further submitted that, thereafter one Ashok Kumar retired from the Partnership firm. Till mid 2002, the firm was carrying out its business from its office at Mariyappanapalya and thereafter shifted to Basaveshwaranagar. The firm had paid Rs.8,00,000/- towards security deposit and was paying monthly rent of Rs.50,000/- to the landlord. It is alleged that, the assets of the firm included several vehicles, refrigerator, cellular phones, furnitures etc., In the year 2002-2003 the firm had more than 350 customers. The firm had more than 30 employees. The firm had several bank account and had regular suppliers of uniform, for renting vehicles for stationery etc., The firm had a turnover of Rs.6,48,13,307.81. The Balance Sheet also reflects the fixed assets of the firm as on 31.03.2001. The written down value of the fixed assets as on 31.03.2001 is Rs. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:5745 CRL.P No. 2720 of 2024 1,91,05,834.30. As seen from the balance sheet of the firm for the assessment year 2002-2003 for the said year there were additions to the fixed assets of the firm worth several lakhs of rupees. The assets added during the said year included several Motor vehicles including Honda City, Tata Sumo, Trident Hyundai, Saantro, Bolero Vehicles, computers, furniture and fittings, cell phones, stereo, coolers etc., It is further submitted that, P.H. Patil died on 02.11.2005 leaving behind him respondents No.1 to 3 as his legal heirs. Thereafter, respondents No.1 to 3 approached the accused Nos.2 to 4 to admit the respondents No.1 to 3 in the partnership business. However, the accused Nos.2 to 4 declined to do so and accused Nos.2 to 4 also refused to settle the account of late Sri.P.H.Patil and refused to even disclose the accounts of the firms to the respondents No.1 to 3. All the accused in collusion with each other have dishonestly misappropriated and converted the assets, goodwill, business and profits of the Firm to themselves to the exclusion of late Sri.P.H.Patil and respondents No.1 to.3 herein. In the year 2001 in breach of Trust placed by Late P.H.Patil, accused persons appear to have promoted a company in the name and style as that of the firm "M/s. Guardwell Detective Serives Pvt. Ltd.," Accused No.4 became the Director, petitioner and one Rohith being relative of accused No.4 claimed to be shareholders/directors of the said Company and the said Company used by the accused was devised to siphon off Goodwill, Assets etc., of the firm. Taking advantage of the ill-health of P.H.Patil firm and the company was floated in similarity and all the accused persons have conspired - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:5745 CRL.P No. 2720 of 2024 together to illegally transfer the entire assets and business of the firm to the company and further it is alleged that the firm rented premises was illegally used by the company by forging the lease of the firm. The accused persons have misappropriated the entire business of the firm in the name of the Company and in turn accused persons have made huge profits. The respondents No.1 to 3 since accused persons were not settling with the accounts of the said firm had to approach the police and the police advised respondents to approach the Civil Court as the issue is civil dispute. Thereby, respondent have filed civil suit in O.S.No. 17597/2006. It is further contended that, after registration of the FIR in Cr.No.435/2007, the respondent No.4 police on 19.06.2008 have filed 'B' report stating that the case of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is a civil dispute. However, on 27.09.2008, the respondents No.1 to 3 have filed protest petition to the 'B' report and also sworn statement was recorded before the IV ACMM, Bengaluru and on 03.03.2009, the learned Magistrate considering the protest petition and sworn statement was pleased to dismiss the complaint on 03.03.2009. However, against the said order the respondents No.1 to 3 have preferred Revision petition before Hon'ble FTC-IV, Bengaluru, in Crl.R.P.No.162/2009, wherein the Hon'ble Sessions Court was pleased to allow the revision petition and remanded back the case in PCR.No. 18818/2007 to the Magistrate. Upon remanding back of the matter, the IV ACMM, Bengaluru, recorded the sworn statement of the respondent No.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.66 and upon hearing the case on behalf of the - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:5745 CRL.P No. 2720 of 2024 respondents No.1 to 3. passed a detailed order on 09.10.2013 to take cognizance of the alleged offences U/Secs.420, 406 and 465 r/w 34 of I.P.C only against accused Nos. 1 to 3. Later on 15.10.2013. an application U/Sec. 190(1) Cr.P.C has been filed by the respondents No.1 to 3 alleging that due to typographical error cognizance has not been taken against all accused persons. Thereafter, the succeeding Magistrate has passed an order on the application U/Sec.190(1) of Cr.P.C on 02.08.2014 and directed the office to register same criminal case against accused Nos.4 to 7 also for the offences punishable U/Secs.406, 420, 465 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Re-issue NBW to accused Nos. 1 to 3 returnable by 11.11.2014. By virtue of the above impugned order the process is issued against the petitioner/accused No.6 in C.C.No. 19101/2013 by IV ACMM, Bengaluru. The petitioner submits that, she is nothing to so with the entire case of the respondents No.1 to 3 and the petitioner is implicated solely for the reason that she is daughter of accused Nos.2 and 4 and petitioner has never involved in the business activities of "M/s.Guardwell Detectives Services (Firm) or Guardwell Detective Services Pvt.Ltd.," 3. Being aggrieved by the said order the revision petitioner has preferred this revision petition on the following grounds. 1) The petitioner submits that, the entire case of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is against accused Nos.2 to 4 and petitioner is noting to do with the entire allegations. The impugned order is without due regards to the material on record, the impugned order has been - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:5745 CRL.P No. 2720 of 2024 passed which is totally contrary to the facts and law and accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set- aside. 2) The impugned order is patently illegal, since the impugned order is passed by reviewing the order of predecessor Presiding Officer i.e., wherein initially a detail order was passed by presiding offier of IV ACMM, Bengaluru, on 09.10.2013 to take cognizance of the alleged offences U/Secs.420, 406 and 465 r/w 34 of I.P.C only against accused Nos.1 to 3 and later on the new Succeeding officer on 02.08.2014 passed the order and directed to register case against accused Nos.4 to 7 also. The learned Magistrate without having power to pass the review order has passed the review impugned order and it is liable to be set-aside. 3) The entire case of respondents No.1 to 3 are false and the petitioner being the daughter of accused Nos.2 and 4 she had nothing to do with the firm wherein accused No.2 was the partner and accused No.4 was the CEO. 4) It is submitted that, M/s Guardwell Detective Services Pvt.Ltd., was incorporated in the year 2001 and respondents No.1 to 3 or Late P.H.Patil under who the respondents are claiming was nothing to do with the said Company. 5) The respondents No.1 to 3 also filed Arbitration proceedings before the Hon'ble City Civil Court, Bengaluru against the accused shown in PCR.No.18818/2007 and the said arbitration proceedings numbered as A.A.No. 16/2007. In the said arbitration proceeding, the court has issued notice to the respondents. The respondents have made set of allegations stating that the Guardwell Detective Services is a Firm and the above respondent converted the said Firm into Company i.e., M/s. Guardwell Detective Service Pvt.Ltd., and it is also alleged that the accused converted the assets from the firm to the company and misappropriated the assets, goodwill, business and profit of the firm to the company. After hearing the said arbitration proceedings in A.A.No.16/2007, the Hon'ble District Judge has given clear findings that the firm and company are two different entity and the partners of the firm are not the directors of the company and the director of the - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:5745 CRL.P No. 2720 of 2024 company were not the partners of the said firm. Therefore, the Hon'ble District Judge, was pleased to dismiss the above case. 6) It is further submitted that, the petitioner nowhere acted as a partner in the said Firm and she did not worked in the said Firm during the lifetime of Late P.H.Patel and petitioner even not directly involved in the day to day affairs of the company. Such being the case, the question of commission of crime does not arise at all. Therefore, issuance of summons to the petitioner is liable to be set-aside and the proceedings against the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. Hence, petitioner prayed to set-aside the order dated 02.08.2014. 4. This revision petition was initially filed before the Hon'ble Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Thereafter it has been assigned to this Court. Thereafter, this Court issued notice to the respondents. The respondents appeared through their respective counsel. Thereafter, the matter is posted for arguments. 5. Heard the arguments of petitioner and respondent. Perused the available records. 6. The points that arise for my determination are as under: 1. Whether the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds to set-aside the order passed by the trial court? 2. What Order? 7. My findings to the above said points are as follows: Point No.1 : In the Negative, Point No.2 : As per final order; For the following; - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:5745 CRL.P No. 2720 of 2024 REASONS 8. POINT NO.1: On perusal of the revision petition and trial court records, it is noticed that, the respondent No.1 filed the complaint before the trial court. The trial court registered the PCR and referred the matter to the S.H.O, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru, U/Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Later on, the concerned police filed 'B' report. The respondent No.1 filed objection. The trial court gone through the 'B' report submitted by the police and same is accepted. The very respondent No.1 challenged the said order before the FTC-IV by filing Revision Petition. Later on, Hon'ble FTC-IV has allowed the revision petition and remanded back the case in PCR.No.18818/2007 to the trial court. Later on, the trial court has recorded the sworn statement of respondent No.1 and documents. The trial court took the cognizance against other accused and issued summons to accused Nos. 1 to 3. Later on, the respondent brought to the notice of the trial court that, due to typographical error cognizance has not been taken against all accused persons. In view of the submission made by the respondent No.1 counsel before the trial court, the trial court Judge acted U/Sec. 190(1) of Cr.P.C. It is observed that, the predecessor in the office has discussed about the sworn statement, 'B' report filed by the 1.0 and document, at the time of discussing the case of the respondent No.1, the trial court Judge due to oversight and typographical error issued summons to accused Nos.1 to 3 and left accused Nos.4 to 7. The same is corrected by the trial court Judge by its order dated 02.08.2014. The said order is challenged by the - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:5745 CRL.P No. 2720 of 2024 present petitioner before this Court by filing this revision petition. The petitioner contended so many facts in the revision petition and grounds etc., The case of the petitioner is that, there are no materials against the petitioner. Inspite of it, the trial court has come to the wrong conclusion of the case on hand and issued summons to the petitioner to appear and proceed with the case. The petitioner further submitted that, respondents No.1 to 3 are also filed arbitration proceedings before Hon'ble City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, against the a shown in PCR.No. 18818/2007 and the said arbitration proceeding numbered as A.A.No.16/2007. The respondents have made set of allegations stating that the Guardwell Detective Services is a Firm and the above respondent converted the said Firm into Company i.e., M/s. Guardwell Detective Service Pvt.Ltd., and it is also alleged that the accused converted the assets from the firm to the company and misappropriated the assets, goodwill, business and profit of the firm to the company. After hearing the said arbitration proceedings in A.A.No.16/2007, the Hon'ble District Judge has given clear findings that the firm and company are two different entity and the partners of the firm are not the directors of the company and the director of the company were not the partners of the said firm. Therefore, the Hon'ble District Judge, was pleased to dismiss the above case. It is further case of the petitioner that, though the petitioner has not participated in the commission of the offence, the petitioner is only Director of the firm, she has not actively participated in the firm business. Inspite of it, - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:5745 CRL.P No. 2720 of 2024 she has been implicated as accused in the above case. Thereby, she has preferred this revision petition. 9. In order to ascertain that the petitioner is a proper and necessary party to the criminal case cited by the trial court, it is better to refer the trial court records. On perusal of the order of the trial court dated 09.10.2013, the trial court Judge observed that, "In 2001 the accused promoted another company in the same name as the complainant's firm viz. Guard Well Detective Service Pvt. Ltd., and the 4th accused became the Managing Director, the 5th accused who is the daughter of accused No.2 and 4 and the 6th accused the brother of 4th accused and another accused No.7 a relative of the 2nd accused became the Directors and shareholders of the said Company." It is further observed that, "The accused manipulated a balance sheet for the year ending 31.03.2004. The complainant filed an application U/Sec.9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the 6th Addl., City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, in A.A.No.16/2007 and the accused filed a frivolous suit in O.S.No. 17597/2006 to prevent the complainant from entering into the firms premises." It is further observed that, "Although in normal course the offence of criminal breach of trust is not attracted to a partner, the circumstances and allegations made in the complaint show that accused No.4 was the CEO and he has taken away all the movables, vehicles etc., of the firm in connivance with other accused and misappropriated the same by taking the same to the company formed in their name." This observation goes to show that all the Directors of firm formed new Company on the same name and style I.e., Guard Well Detective Service - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:5745 CRL.P No. 2720 of 2024 Pvt. Ltd., The entire order of the trial court as well as the observation made by the Hon'ble FTC-IV in Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 162/2009, it reveals that, the present petitioner being the partner of the Company, she is also relative to other accused persons. She has participated in the business. Once the managing partner acted on behalf of other Directors of the company, it is presumed that, other directors has done the said act. Moreover, the sworn statement and documents of the respondent before the trial court reveals that, there are sufficient materials placed before the trial court to take cognizance of the offence against the petitioner and others. Thereby, the trial court has registered case against the petitioner and others. 10. In order to overcome the reasons assigned by the trial court, the petitioner is not able to place any other relevant documents. Moreover, the petitioner never disputed that she is not the Director of Guard Well Detective Service Pvt. Ltd., It goes to show that, the husband of respondent No.1 formed the partnership firm in the name and style "M/s.Guardwell Detective Service". Later on, some of the partners are inducted in the said partnership firm. The husband of respondent No.1 was suffering from ill- health and he could not recover from the same and he expired. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 being the wife and children of P.H.Patil requested the other partners to induct them as partners in the said firm. The other partners are not permitted the respondents No.1 to 3 to induct as partners. The respondent No.1 has gone through the entire records and came to know that, in order to deceive her husband, the other partners are formed another firm in the same name - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:5745 CRL.P No. 2720 of 2024 and style. Moreover, the accused persons have also taken away the movable assets, vehicles of the original firm to the new Company. All these facts are elaborately discussed by the trial court at the time of taking cognizance against the petitioner and other accused persons. Moreover, the trial court registered case against the petitioner and others. But the petitioner has not appeared before the trial court inspite of issuance of NBW etc., Thereby, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. At the initial stage, this court has stayed the further proceedings of the trial court. Thereafter, the matter is pending for adjudication. 11. On perusal of the order sheet of this Court, it reveals that, my Predecessor in the office initially passed the order and stayed the further proceedings in C.C.No.19101/2013 and limitation point is kept open for discussion. In the meantime, the respondent raised objections regarding limitation. Thereby, my Predecessor in the office has passed necessary order in the said point and contention of the respondent that the petition is barred by time is negatived. Consequently, it is held that, the present criminal revision petition is in time. The said order is challenged by the respondent before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by filing Writ Pet.No.20363/2019. The said Writ Petition is disposed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide order dated 14.06.2021. It is observed that, "the writ petition stands dismissed. It is needless to state that the learned Sessions Court is expected to dispose of the revision petition filed by accused No.6 at the earliest." In view of the said order, one thing is clear that this revision is in time. - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:5745 CRL.P No. 2720 of 2024 12. Now, I would like to discuss about the materials placed by the petitioner as well as the stand taken by the present revision petitioner that she is not involved in the commission of the offence, the trial court has wrongly arrayed the petitioner as accused in the C.C. case etc., In order to substantiate the said fact, the petitioner is not able to place any cogent materials before this Court. At the same time, I would like to refer the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl. Pet.No.3994/2016, wherein the present respondent and Police Inspector, Basaveshwaranagar Police Station are the respondents in the said Writ Petition. The petitioner in the said petition contended that, the cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and summons issued to the petitioner to answer the charges under sections 406, 420, 465 r/w Sec.34 of I.P.C are baseless and are not supported by any material. On perusal of the impugned order, it is found that the learned Magistrate has taken into consideration Ex.D.11, partnership deed executed by the husband of the complainant and has observed that the same is alleged to have been forged by the accused persons. Based on the contentions of the parties, the Hon'ble High Court has dismissed the said Writ Petition filed by the petitioner. In view of the observation made by the Hon'ble High Court, it is noticed that the trial court has gone through the materials placed by the 1 respondent at the time of taking cognizance of the offence U/Secs.406, 420, 441, 463, 120A r/w Sec. 149 of I.P.C against the petitioner and others. - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:5745 CRL.P No. 2720 of 2024 13. Another point to be noted that, other accused persons are already appeared before the trial court and obtained bail and proceed with the case. The present petitioner being accused No.6 appeared before the trial court and she has challenged the said order before this Court. On going through the entire records as well as the observation made by the trial court and other documents, it reveals that there are sufficient materials placed by the first respondent before the trial court to take cognizance against the petitioner and others. At this stage, this Court feels that, the reasons assigned by the petitioner in the present revision petition are not sufficient to interfere in the order of the trial court. The trial court has elaborately discussed about the sworn statement of respondent No.1 and documents Exs.P.1 to P.66. The trial court observed that, there is prima facie case made out by respondent No.1 against the petitioner and others to take cognizance. Thereby, in my opinion there are no materials placed by the petitioner to interfere in the order of the trial court. On the other hand, the materials placed by the first respondent and documents are clearly reveals that the first respondent is able to made out sufficient grounds to proceed against the revision petitioner and others. Thereby, at this stage, I am of the opinion that there are no materials placed by the petitioner to intervene in the order of the trial court. Hence, I answer points No.1 in the NEGATIVE. 14. POINT NO.2: In view of my findings on Points No.1, I proceed to pass the following: - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:5745 CRL.P No. 2720 of 2024 ORDER The Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.397 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. The impugned order dated 02.08.2014, passed by IV ACMM, Bangalore, in C.C.No.19101/2013, is hereby confirmed. Send back the LCR to the trial court with a copy of this order forthwith.” 11. As can be seen from the aforesaid order, the Sessions Court has correctly and properly considered and appreciated the entire material on record and has come to the correct conclusion that the learned Magistrate had in fact rejected the ‘B’ report and had taken cognizance against all 7 accused persons including petitioner – accused No.6 and the operative portion of the said order dated 09.10.2013 directing registration of criminal case only against accused Nos. 1 to 3 and not against accused Nos. 4 to 7 including the petitioner was clearly erroneous and that it was permissible in law to rectify the aforesaid typographical/clerical errors/mistakes as well as errors apparent on the face of the record arising out of/or accruing from an accidental slip or omission in the said order dated 09.10.2013 by passing the impugned orders, which cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference in the present petition. - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:5745 CRL.P No. 2720 of 2024 12. Upon reconsideration, re-evaluation and re-appreciation of the entire material on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders and the petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.