- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12384 CRL.P No. 13702 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13702 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI. KUMARESHAN S/O GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT 1/14, BOYAR STREET, KALKURICHI POST, SENTHAMANGALAM TALUK, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU - 637 402 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VISHWAS S. REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ATTIBELE P.S, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001 Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12384 CRL.P No. 13702 of 2024 2. FIRST STEPS BABY WEAR PVT. LTD. GUDDAHATTI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106. REP. BY HARIHARASUDHAN. M, GENERAL MANAGER, INFORMANT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI. MANOJ TANEJA, ADV. A/W SRI. ABHIRUP BANGARA, ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO 1.SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31.12.2019 AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.2 IN C.C.NO.1429/2017 (CR.NO.165/2016) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120B,406,408,420,477A,201 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE III ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C ANEKAL, BEGALURU DISTRICT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12384 CRL.P No. 13702 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: "a. pleased to set aside the order dated 31.12.2019 and quash the entire proceedings against the Petitioner / Accused no.2 in C.C. No.1429/2017 (Crime No. 165/2016) for the offences punishable u/s 120 B, 406, 408, 420, 477A, 201 r/w S.34 of IPC pending before the Hon'ble III Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, Bengaluru District, in the interest of justice. b. quash the order dated 24/06/2024 as passed in C.C.No.1429/2017 (Crime No. 165/2016) for the offences punishable u/s 120 B, 406, 408, 420, 477A, 201 r/w S.34 of IPC pending before the Hon'ble III Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, Bengaluru District, in the interest of justice." 2. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the complainant would in unison submit that the charges in the case at hand have been framed on 03.02.2020 and the matter is at the stage of trial. 3. At this stage, interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., would not be a jurisdiction that this Court would - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12384 CRL.P No. 13702 of 2024 exercise, in the light of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar1. 4. In that light, the petitioner is reserved liberty to urge all the contentions before the concerned Court at the appropriate time. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed. Ordered accordingly. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would not press the second prayer, in the light of the disposal of the petition. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 1 (1994) 4 SCC 142 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12384 CRL.P No. 13702 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [SRI KUMARESHAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER] 01.04.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER ON 'BEING SPOKEN TO' This Court, in terms of the order dated 25.03.2025, had disposed the petition on the score that the charges had been framed and this Court would not entertain the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., once charges would be framed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner moved a memo for ‘being spoken to’ on the score that there are several judgments of the Apex Court, which have permitted entertainment of the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, he seeks to place reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of D.K.BASU, ASHOK K. JOHRI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 610), SUNDAR BABU VS. STATE OF TAMIL (AIR 2009 SC (SUPP) 2087, SATISH MEHRA VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) [(2012) 13 SCC 614] and the judgment of the High Court of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12384 CRL.P No. 13702 of 2024 Punjab and Haryana in the case of GUNRINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB REPORTED IN CRM No.17720/2024 IN CRM.M.7426/2020. There can be no qualm about the principles laid down by the Apex Court and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the aforesaid judgments, but I decline to accept the same, in the light of the subsequent judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the cases of SARANYA VS. BHARATHI AND ANOTHER reported in (2021) 8 SCC 583. It reads as follows: “…. …. …. 10. Before considering the rival submissions of the parties, few decisions of this Court on the principles which the High Court must keep in mind while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC/at the stage of framing of the charge while considering the discharge application are required to be referred to and considered. 11. In Deepak [State of M.P. v. Deepak, (2019) 13 SCC 62 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 521] , to which one of us (Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) is the author, after considering the other binding decisions of this Court on the point, namely, Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986] , State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu [State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu, (2017) 3 SCC 198 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 40 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 545] , and Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] , it is observed and held that at the stage of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12384 CRL.P No. 13702 of 2024 framing of charges, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is a ground for “presuming” that the accused had committed the offence. It is observed and held that at that stage, the High Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. It is further observed and held that at this stage the High Court is not required to appreciate the evidence on record and consider the allegations on merits and to find out on the basis of the evidence recorded the accused chargesheeted or against whom the charge is framed is likely to be convicted or not. 12. In the present case, there is sufficient material on record raising the strong suspicion against Respondent 1 herein — A-2 also. It has been found that A-2 Respondent 1 herein who was serving in the Secretariat and was in touch with the deceased and the complainant as she used to go to Xerox shop owned by the deceased and she introduced A-1 to the complainant and the deceased. It is specifically alleged that she said that she can manage to get the job/employment for the deceased but for that they have to pay. It is true that as per the case of the prosecution and even as per the statement of the complainant, an amount of Rs 5 lakhs was paid to A-1. However, during the course of the investigation, an amount of Rs 1 lakh 20 thousand has been recovered from the house of Respondent 1 herein — A-2 at the instance of A-2 herself. It may be true that the so- called confessional statement of Respondent 1 herein is inadmissible in evidence. However, it is to be noted that on the basis of such statement, there was a recovery of Rs 1 lakh 20 thousand from the house of A-2 — Respondent 1 herein. The other aspect whether the recovered amount of Rs 1 lakh 20 thousand was the same amount which was given by the deceased and the complainant to A-1 is a matter of evidence to be considered during trial. Even the source of Rs 1 lakh 20 thousand might have to be explained by the accused. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12384 CRL.P No. 13702 of 2024 13. It also appears that during the course of the investigation, the investigating officer has collected very important evidence in the form of call details between A-1 and A-2 which are in the proximity of the time of commission of offence and even thereafter. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when Respondent 1 herein has been chargesheeted for the offences under Sections 420, 302 read with Section 109 IPC and as observed hereinabove when there is ample material to show at least a prima facie case against Respondent 1 herein — A-2, the High Court has committed a grave error in quashing the charge- sheet/entire criminal proceedings qua her in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. Quashing the charge-sheet against the accused is not justified. The High Court has evidently ignored what has emerged during the course of investigation. The High Court has entered into the appreciation of the evidence and considered whether on the basis of the evidence, the accused is likely to be convicted or not, which as such is not permissible at all at this stage while considering the application under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court was not as such conducting the trial and/or was not exercising the jurisdiction as an appellate court against the order of conviction or acquittal. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court ought not to have quashed the charge-sheet qua Respondent 1 herein — original Accused 2.” (Emphasis supplied) In the case of CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. ARYAN SINGH AND OTHERS reported in (2023) 18 SCC 399, has held as follows: “…. …. …. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12384 CRL.P No. 13702 of 2024 6. From the impugned common judgment and order [Aryan Singh v. CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine P&H 4158] passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC, the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution/investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution/investigating agency. 7. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC, the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider “whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not”.” (Emphasis supplied) and in the case of STATE OF ORISSA VS. PRATIMA BEHERA reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3805 “…. …. … 9. Before considering the rival contentions on merits in order to consider the sustainability or otherwise of the impugned judgment, we think it only appropriate to consider certain relevant - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12384 CRL.P No. 13702 of 2024 position of law in relation to certain aspects involved in the case on hand. We will firstly consider the scope of Section 239, Cr. P.C. In the decision in R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay2, this Court held that the obligation to discharge the accused under Section 239 arises only when the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless. In the decisions in State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi3, this Court held thus:— “7. In the backdrop of the factual position discussed above, the question formulated earlier arises for our consideration. The legal position is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge the Trial Court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials placed on record by the prosecution nor is it for the court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons. At the stage of charge the court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that a prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused persons. It is also well settled that when the petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 CrPC seeking for the quashing of charge framed against them the court should not interfere with the order unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of the court a charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed. Such an order can be passed only in exceptional cases and on rare occasions. It is to be kept in mind that once the Trial Court has framed a charge against an accused the trial must proceed without unnecessary interference by a superior court and the entire evidence from the prosecution side should be placed on record. Any attempt by an accused for quashing of a charge before the entire prosecution evidence has come on record should not be entertained sans exceptional cases.” 10. We may hasten to state at this juncture that though at the stage of framing of issue what is to be seen is only whether there is a prima facie case to make the accused to stand the trial at the trial, certainly, the presumption of innocence should be in favour of the accused. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12384 CRL.P No. 13702 of 2024 11. Taking note of the fact that in the case on hand, the High Court set aside the charge framed against the respondent while exercising the revisional power, it is relevant to refer to the decision in Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar4. This Court on the question of quashing of charge by the High Court made the following pertinent observations:— “7…To put it differently, once charges are framed under Section 240 CrPC the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction would not be justified in relying upon documents other than those referred to in Sections 239 and 240 CrPC; nor would it be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the same except in those rare cases where forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a course. We hasten to add even in such exceptional cases the High Court can look into only those documents which are unimpeachable and can be legally translated into relevant evidence. 8. Apart from the infirmity in the approach of the High Court in dealing with the matter which we have already noticed, we further find that instead of adverting to and confining its attention to the documents referred to in Sections 239 and 240 CrPC the High Court has dealt with the rival contentions of the parties raised through their respective affidavits at length and on a threadbare discussion thereof passed the impugned order. The course so adopted cannot be supported; firstly, because finding regarding commission of an offence cannot be recorded on the basis of affidavit evidence and secondly, because at the stage of framing of charge the Court cannot usurp the functions of a Trial Court to delve into and decide upon the respective merits of the case.” (underline supplied) 12. In short, while reiterating the position that in a prosecution, presumption of innocence should be in favour of the accused, it has to be said that at the stage of framing charge, even a very strong suspicion, of course, founded upon materials and presumptive opinion would enable the Court to frame charge against an accused. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:12384 CRL.P No. 13702 of 2024 13. In view of the divergent finding on the question whether final report was ‘groundless’ or not, we will consider that aspect and, in that regard, we will have to bear in mind the position(s) of law mentioned hereinbefore. Upon going through the order of the Trial Court rejecting the petition for discharge, we have no hesitation to hold that the Court considered that question fully realising the scope of Section 239, Cr. P.C. As can be seen from the order dated 05.03.2016, upon such consideration, though detailed reasons have not been given, the Trial Court held that prima facie case exists as borne out from the materials and the final report. We have, therefore, to consider whether the High Court is legally correct in interfering with and setting aside the same and discharging the respondent. 14. At the outset, it is to be noted that the respondent who did not raise a contention that during the investigation she has produced the receipts of the Income Tax Returns before the investigating officer, filed income tax documents ‘stated to have been obtained’ under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, “the RTI Act”) from the Income Tax Authorities, as observed by the High Court. Obviously, paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment would reveal that the High Court had considered ‘the said documents stated to have been obtained under the RTI Act’ and after disregarding the contention of the appellant that during the investigation neither the respondent furnished the receipts of the Income Tax Returns nor they could be found in the office of the IT Department even on repeated attempts to get the same by the Investigating Officer. After going through such materials, certified copies of Income Tax Returns for the assessment years from 2008-2009 to 2016-2017, produced by the learned counsel for the respondent before the High Court, the High Court observed and held that it could be inferred that the investigating agency had deliberately withheld the material documents like returns of the appellant and mechanically submitted the chargesheet against her. A perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal the nature of the exercise undertaken for passing the impugned judgment. In fact, the aforesaid observation was made after going through the documents filed by the respondent before the High Court. In this context, it is also to be noted that the High Court has also referred to the contentions of the respondent, including the one that - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:12384 CRL.P No. 13702 of 2024 for purchasing land at Bhubaneswar, she had borrowed an amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs from her father. After such exercise, it was held by the High Court that there is no clinching material showing that the appellant abetted her husband or made any conspiracy or instigated him in the alleged acquisition of disproportionate assets. This observation itself would go against the very scope of Section 239, Cr. P.C. as at the stage of consideration of a petition for discharge what is to be considered whether there is a ‘prima facie’ case and certainly, the endeavour cannot be to find whether ‘clinching’ materials are there or not. In the common parlance the word ‘clinch’ means ‘point’ or circumstance that settles the issue. We have no hesitation to hold that such meticulous consideration for presence or absence of clinching material is beyond the scope of power of the Court while considering the question of discharge under Section 239, Cr. P.C. as also while considering the question of quashing of charge framed by the Trial Court, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. It is to be noted that at that stage the materials collected by the prosecution would not mature into evidence and therefore, beyond the question of existence or otherwise prima facie case based on materials, the question whether they are clinching or not could not be gone into.” (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court and on the score that the charges are already been framed and the matter is set at trial, I decline to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court should interfere in the proceedings. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:12384 CRL.P No. 13702 of 2024 There is no warrant to recall or alter the judgment that is already rendered by this Court in the subject petition on 25.03.2025. This order be treated as part and parcel of the final order dated 25.03.2025. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1