- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30078 CRL.RP No. 1478 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1478 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. M/S REI ELECTRONIC PVT LTD., MYSURU, NO.366, SRI VENKATARAMANSWAMY TEMPLE STREET, KR MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 024. REP. BY PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3. 2. RAMASWAMY.S, S/O LATE SUNDAR MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S REI ELECTRONIC PVT LTD., MYSURU, NO.366, SRI VENKATARAMANSWAMY TEMPLE STREET, KR MOHALLA, MYSURU-570024. 3. SMT NEELA RAMASWAMY, W/O RAMASWAMY S, DIRECTOR M/S REI ELECTRONIC PVT LTD., NO.351, 38TH CROSS, 9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560069. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI VENKATESH P DALWAI, ADVOCATE) AND: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, OFF/AT 3RD AVENUE, NEAR DINDUGAL THALAPAKKATIM TIRUVALLUVAR NAGAR, BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU-600090, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30078 CRL.RP No. 1478 of 2024 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAHUL KRISHNA REDDY P & SRI PRASANNA KUMAR P, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT/CBI) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE DATED 25.09.2024 IN SPL.C.C.NO.1155/2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE XXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES (CCH-34) AT BANGALORE CONSEQUENTLY DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER NO.1 TO 3 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120B R/W 420, 468 R/W 471 OF IPC IN SPL.C.C.NO.1155/2021 IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order rejecting application under Section 227 read with Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code. The offence alleged against the petitioner is that the petitioners have cheated the complainant/bank while availing loan on the premise that the loan is required to purchase the technology from the Canadian Company. The bank has filed compliant on the premise that the Canadian Company has sent an e-mail that it has not entered into any - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30078 CRL.RP No. 1478 of 2024 agreement with the petitioners/accused to sell the technology in favour of the petitioners/accused. Based on the said e-mail, the bank has lodged a complaint on the premise that the complainant has cheated and forged the alleged agreement for sale between the Canadian Company and the petitioners. Pursuant to the complaint, investigation is carried out and charge sheet is filed. 3. The petitioners/accused moved an application to discharge the petitioner on the premise that no case is made out to hold trial against the petitioners/accused. Said application was opposed by the investigating agency. The Trial Court after having considered the records placed before it, has concluded that a case for trial is made out and no case is made out for discharge of the accused. Hence, the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that charge relating to forgery could not have been tried by the Trial Court as the document which is said to have been forged by the petitioners/accused is not placed before the Trial Court and is not part of the charge sheet. It is his further submission that no statement of the representative from the Company in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30078 CRL.RP No. 1478 of 2024 Canada is recorded to hold that the original agreement which the petitioner entered into with the Canadian Company is in Canada and unless, the said document is summoned and sent for the opinion of the Forensic Expert, trial for an offence of forgery is totally misconceived. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand would submit that the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the application as the contents of the complaint as well as the contents of the charge sheet clearly demonstrate that a case is made out for trial and the petitioners who are supposed to be the custodians of the agreement for purchase of technology have not produced the agreement. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the investigating agency has proceeded on the basis of an e-mail issued by the Company in Canada and materials are already secured in the charge sheet and a case is made out for trial. 6. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 7. The contents of the complaint and the contents of the charge sheet would reveal that case is made out for trial of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30078 CRL.RP No. 1478 of 2024 the offences mentioned in the charge sheet. However, if the petitioners/accused file an application and intend to establish that the document is not forged as alleged by the prosecution, petitioners/accused are at liberty to take such steps as advised in law to prove that the document is not forged and the document is genuine. 8. In case materials are not available in the charge sheet to frame a charge under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, it is for the petitioners/accused to make an appropriate application for appropriate relief either for modification of the charge or other relief. If such an application is filed, same shall be considered in accordance with law without being influenced by the order dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition. 9. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE brn List No.: 2 Sl No.: 45