Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 57668 (KAR)

SHRI. SHUAIBULLAH KHAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.RP/1095/2024 · 2025-07-04

S R Krishna Kumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1095 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. SHUAIBULLAH KHAN S/O ABDUL RAHEED KHAN AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. NO.7, TAWAKKAL FARM NEW AIRPORT ROAD NEAR TAWAKKAL MASJID VILLAGE KADUSONNAPPANAHALLI POST, KANNUR, BANGALORE – 562 149. 2. MADASA MASIH-UL-ULOOM EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST, NO.141/1, NEW AIRPORT ROAD, NEAR TAWAKKAL MASJID, KADUSONNAPPANAHALLI, KANNUR POST, BANGALORE – 562 149, REPRESENTED BY SHRI. SHAUIBULLAH KHAN. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.G. RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C.R. RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY COMMERCIAL STREET POLICE STATION, CBI, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BANGALORE – 560 001. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 2. SHRI. MOHD. KHALID AHAMED, S/O LATE BASHEER AHAMED, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT I.V.Y. COTTAGE, GROUND FLOOR, FLAT NO.A, 2ND MAIN ROAD, KAVAL BYRASANDRA, R.T. NAGAR (POST) BANGALORE – 560 032. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI. G.M. SRINIVASA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE LXXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-82) BANGALORE (SPECIAL COURT FOR MPs/MLAs) DATED 05.06.2024 ON DISCHARGE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ACCUSED NOS.32 AND 33 / PETITIONERS IN SPL.C.C.NO.1055/2019 (CR NO.73/2019) (RC14(A)/2019/CBI/ACB/BLR) PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE LXXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-82) BANGALORE AND ALLOW ABOVE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by accused Nos.32 and 33 in Spl.C.No.1055/2019 on the file of the LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-82) (Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases related to elected former and sitting MPs / MLAs in the State of Karnataka), Bengaluru, is directed against the impugned order dated 05.06.2024 whereby the application filed by - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 the petitioners – accused Nos.32 and 33 under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge from the impugned proceedings was rejected by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 09.06.2019 pursuant to which the impugned proceedings against 31 accused persons was registered on 30.08.2019 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 406, 409, 420 r/w 120B of IPC. Subsequently, on 01.09.2023, the 1st respondent – police filed supplementary charge sheet against the petitioners – accused Nos.32 and 33 which is currently pending in the instant Spl.C.C.No.1055/2019 for alleged offences punishable under Section 406, 409, 420, 426, 477A, 120B and 218 IPC and Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (for short, ‘KPIDFE Act, 2004’). In the said proceedings, the petitioners – accused Nos.32 and 33 filed the instant application under Section - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge which was opposed by the respondent and culminated in the impugned order rejecting the application filed by the petitioners, who are before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will clearly indicate that the Trial Court has correctly and properly considered and appreciated the entire material on record including the rival contentions and has rejected the discharge application filed by the petitioners by holding as under: “ORDERS ON DISCHARGE APPLICATION FILED BY ACCUSED No.32 AND 33 UNDER SEC.227 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE “The accused No.32 Sri Shuaibullah Khan and accused No.33 - Madarasa Masihul Uloom Educational and Charitable Trust (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trust’ for short) represented by Accused No.32 have filed this discharge application contending that there are no materials to proceed against them. In the instant case, the aforesaid accused persons have been alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sec.120-B r/w 218, 406, 409, 420, 426, 477-A of IPC and Sec.9 of Karnataka Protection of Interest of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (‘KPIDFE Act’ for short). 2. The genesis of the above case is that, M/s. I Monetary Advisory Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as “IMA”) and its group of companies were engaged in various business activities like bullion trading, construction business, education, jewellery business, health care etc., and there were around 18 entities associated with the aforesaid firm. They were all registered with the Registrar of Companies (ROC), Bengaluru and one Company was registered with ROC, Mumbai. One Credit-Co-operative Society was registered at District Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bengaluru and several other firms were registered at Registrar, Bengaluru. The main activities of the aforesaid companies in general were to collect the investments and deposits from general public and they were being allured by assuring high percentage of returns. The investigation paper further reveals that in the month of March, 2019, M/s.IMA could not keep its promises of paying high percentage of returns to its investors/ depositors who had deposited their money in their entities. Many of the depositors and investors had demanded M/s.IMA to return their money and since the Company did not return the principal amount, many of the investors/ depositors had filed various complaints before the various police stations across the State of Karnataka. At that point of time, the proprietor and Managing Director of M/s.IMA had released an audio-video clip blaming many politicians and also he fled to Dubai in July 2019. The - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 concerned Police had initially registered a complaint before the Commercial Street Police Station, Bengaluru and on the basis of the same, the investigation had commenced in the above case. Subsequently, it was noticed that about 15 more cases were registered against IMA and its group of entities at various Police Stations in the State of Karnataka and later on, a separate order was passed constituting a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to the State of Karnataka and in furtherance of their investigation, SIT had arrested around 25 persons including 12 Directors and also 2 more cases came to be registered by the State Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. At that point of time, a separate notification was passed under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and also a Corrigendum was issued on 27.08.2019 by Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) under Section 5 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (‘DSPE’ for short) entrusting the further investigation to CBI. 3. Based on the same, the FIR No.RC14(A)/2019- CBI/ACB/BLR was registered and in furtherance of the same, investigation was commenced by them by receiving the materials which were already recovered by the then Investigating Officers. It was noticed during the course of investigation that M/s.IMA and its sister concerns were involved in bullion trading, construction business, education, jewellery business, health care etc., and they collected deposits from general public by alluring them to return high rate of interest and also had diverted the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 amount received to the accounts of IMA and its Group of entities illegally. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed and during the course of investigation, the Investigating Agency had filed 7 supplementary charge-sheets before this court. 4. On perusal of the charge-sheets which are placed before this court, my Predecessor in office had taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences and accused were secured before this court. The accused have now come up before this court with the present discharge application. 5. The main role which has been attributed in the chargesheet with respect to the present accused No.32 who is also representing accused No.33 Trust, is that the accused No.32-Shuaibullah Khan had founded the aforesaid A33-Trust in the year 1984 which was duly registered and had its office at Bharathi Nagar, Bengaluru and subsequently it was re-located to No.141/1, New Airport Road, Near Tawakkal Masjid, Kadu Sonnappana Halli, Hennuru Post, Bengaluru and accused No.32 was the founder Trustee as well as Principle of the Trust. It is contended that the Trust had intended to construct a hostel cum class room facility from the funds received from various donors about 15 years ago for academic and non-academic purpose to be conducted in the building. However, since the number of admissions kept on increasing, it was not in a position to complete its construction. As such, A32- Shuaibullah Khan in order to get funds for construction of new buildings of the Madarasa, had entered into a criminal conspiracy with - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 accused No.1 who was also the proprietor of M/s. I Monetory Advisory Private Limited and several sister concerns carrying out financial activities under the guise of advises and bullion trading. It is further, contended that in furtherance of the said conspiracy entered into between accused No.32 and accused No.1, Accused No.32 had started to propagate to the general public, who was having a serious impact on the followers of his community by stating that the institution of accused No.1 and its group entities did not pay interest on the deposits to the depositors, but it was helping out the general public which could be termed as Halal Money. It is also been alleged that after the receipt of the said funds, the accused No.1 had transferred huge amount to the A33-Trust towards construction and a sum of Rs.14 Crores was diverted to accused No.32 by accused No.1 Mohammed Mansoor Khan from M/s.I Monetory Advisory Pvt Ltd., (‘IMA’ for short) which is arraigned as accused No.16. It is also been contended that accused No.32 had published a booklet in Urdu and English language and the business practices of M/s.IMA by falsely projecting that the business practices of M/s.IMA were in line with Shariyat law. These booklets were published and circulated by accused No.1 among common investors and depositors to gain their confidence and to manipulate funds from them. It is also been contended in the charge sheet that an extensive campaign had prompted many depositors to make deposit in their entities and later on the accused No.1 and his group of entities had defaulted in payment of money / deposit to the investors. It is further stated in the charge sheet that the accused No.32, in lieu of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 the services rendered in propagating a false propagation of accused No.1 and its entities, had obtained financial benefits as quid pro quo. From the funds received through the said act of quid pro quo the accused No.32 had purchased immovable properties situated at Deoband Tehsil, Saharanpur District, Uttar Pradesh which comprised of shop and house through a registered sale deed dated 23.5.2016 and another shop and house on the very same day and again a building at Mohammed Khanakah situated at MBD No.532, 532/1, 526, 526/1, 519, 520 at Deoband Tehsil, Saharanpur Dist through registered sale deed dated 16.2.2016. It is stated that combined purchase value of the said properties as per the sale deed was Rs.1.67 Crores which was the entire amount given as quid pro quo by accused No.1 and its group of entities. It is narrated that the stamp duty and registration charges were borne by accused No.1 towards the purchase of property in the name of Moulana Mufti Shuaibullah Khan. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused No.1 had misappropriated around 12 crores from IMA and its group of entities and the same amount was paid to accused No.32 towards construction of his Trust property. Apart from that it is also alleged that initially an amount of Rs.60 lakhs was credited in to the Trust Account maintained at Canara Bank on 23.1.2015 which was diverted from the deposits of IMA and thereafter the balance amount was directly paid to the vendors as well as Trust people to meet the miscellaneous expenditures in the construction of various buildings of the Trust. That apart, it is also been stated that during the period - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 2015-18 the accused No.32 had used his influence among the followers in the community and had brought lot of investment and deposits in the IMA entities through which the accused No.1 and its group of entities had earned large chunk of amount. Out of the said amount accused No.1 had transferred the same in favour of accused No.32, in whom several innocent people had reposed faith and confidence and had made the deposits, the accused No.32 had started construction of the building and also had utilized the said amount. Due to the act of the accused No.32 in misleading the general public to make deposits with dishonest intention in furtherance of criminal conspiracy which he had entered into with accused No.1 and its group of entities, had lead to cause serious financial distrust. Accordingly, the investigation was completed and subsequently supplementary charge sheet was filed wherein the present accused No.32 and accused No.33 were arraigned as necessary accused persons committing the aforesaid offences. 6. On filing of the charge sheet necessary cognizance was taken and based on the same, the accused No.32 and accused No.33 Trust being represented by accused No.32, were summoned before this court. The accused No.32 in pursuance of the summons had appeared before this court and was admitted to bail. 7. The accused No.32 now has filed the present discharge application contending that there are no prima facie materials available against him and a false allegation has been leveled. The first and foremost contention which - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 has been urged by the learned counsel for accused No.32 and accused No.33 is that he was not at all arraigned as accused in the FIR and subsequently, at the time of filing of supplementary charge sheet he was arraigned as necessary accused person. It is also been stated in the discharge application that no overt acts are pointed out against the accused No.32 and it is his contention that accused No.32 was the founder member of the Education Trust which has been arraigned as accused No.33 and the Trust had received donations from various donors for its philanthropic activities. The Trust had started activity in the year 1984 and since then the Trustees were rendering their services in educating poor children and orphans and by providing all sorts of educational facilities including free boarding and lodging facilities and also academic materials. 8. It has been submitted that accused No.1 donated a sum of Rs.50 lakhs to accused No.33 Trust and the same was utilized for the welfare of orphan students and out of the said amount they had not utilized any amount for their personal usage. It is also been submitted that the accused No.32 was the Secretary and Chief Executive of the Trust and at the time of purchase of land for the Trust, number of prominent persons from Muslim community had contributed donations voluntarily and after purchase of the land, the Trust had decided to build an educational institution by raising funds. Accordingly, necessary donations were collected voluntarily from the persons who are willing to contribute. It is also submitted that the accused No.1 had - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 paid Rs.50 lakhs voluntarily and subsequently, he had paid a sum of Rs.11,20,00,000/- (Rs.Eleven Crore Twenty Lakhs only) by way of cash and also sometimes the business personnel had supplied construction material to the institution. It is vehemently submitted that the entire donations were made voluntarily and there was no iota of materials to indicate that the said transactions were made with a dishonest intention to cheat and defraud any people. It is also been contended by the Accused No.32 and 33 that they had published a booklet in Urdu language highlighting about the fact that the group of entities of accused No.1 was not doing any yeomen service and also requested the general public not to invest any money in IMA and had requested them to refrain from making investments. It is also been submitted that the accused No.33 Trust which had received the amount from the general public were fully utilized for the construction of the building and since they had also declared in income tax returns with respect to the donations being made, it is their contention that the allegations leveled against them were all false and fabricated. 9. It is further narrated that the Accused No.22 by Mohammad Akbar Sheriff @ Umar sheriff founder member of Al-Kosheer International School, Bannerghatta Road had received a huge donation from accused No.1 Mohammed Mansoor Khan and he was also arrested by the CBI and produced before the Court. However, at the time of filing of charge sheet his name came to be dropped on the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 ground that he was not part of any conspiracy with accused No.1 and as such the present Accused No.32 contends that he too stands on the same footing and he may also be discharged on the ground of parity. It is further narrated that no materials have been pointed out against the present Accused No.32 and in a mechanical manner and for statistical purpose a false allegation have been leveled against them by filing charge sheet. 10. During the course of argument though the learned counsel for Accused No.32 and 33 had vehemently argued with respect to discharge application, they had also preferred to file written arguments when the case was posted for orders. Once again, the prosecution also was afforded with an opportunity to rebut the contentions and grounds which were urged in the written arguments. In the written arguments, the Accused No.32 and Accused 33 have taken up several different grounds by contending that the present initiation of the case against Accused No.32 and Accused No.33 is bad in law. The learned counsel for accused No.32 and Accused No.33 had contended that the filing of charge sheet by invoking provision under Sec.173(8) of Cr.P.C. subsequently by the Investigating Agency are not in accordance with law. It has been contended that when a charge sheet has been filed for vague allegations, the case cannot be proceeded and taking of cognizance on the basis of vague allegations would be bad in law. In order to substantiate the same, the learned counsel for Accused No.32 has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 Court reported in 1977 AIR SC 1754 and also another judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala reported in 2010 Crl.L.J. 3693. It is further submitted that the prosecution had not obtained any necessary permission for filing of the charge sheet and also the statement of the witnesses recorded under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C., pertaining to Muhammed Akbar Shariff @ Umar Shariff who is an independent witness, Smt.Vaseem, Arshad Khan, Nasir Hussain, Syed Mujahid, Nizamuddin, Naveed Ahmed Nattamkar does not inspire confidence. It is also been submitted that the prosecution has not produced any materials to indicate the overt act against them. It has been submitted in the written arguments that the supplementary charge sheet filed does not indicate whether re-investigation or fresh investigation was conducted, which was not at all permissible in any event. It is also been submitted that the invocation of provision under Sec.9 of KPIDFE Act and BUDS Act was not proper and also it is submitted that the court was trying the case under BUDS Act without empowering notification being passed by the Government. It is also been submitted that the collection of amount by accused No.1 did not indicate of attracting the definition of share capital or investment which could attract the rigors of Sec.2 of KPIDFE Act or that of the BUDS Act. Lastly, it is their contention that there was no evidence or materials placed to indicate that the accused No.32 and 33 were alleged of malafide intentions, the alleged criminal act of IMA and its entities. 11. The learned counsel for accused has also relied upon plethora of judgments and placing reliance on - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 the same, he has sought for discharge of the aforesaid Accused No.32 and the Accused No.33 Trust. 12. Per contra learned Special Public Prosecutor on request has put in appearance and has filed detailed statement of objections. In the statement of objections, the prosecution has specifically contended that there are prima- facie materials available against the present accused persons and also it has been in detail explained about the overt-acts committed by the accused No.32 and Accused no.33 Trust and also the materials available against them. By pointing out the same, the prosecution has submitted that the present application is devoid of merits and has requested for dismissal of the application. 13. During the course of arguments, Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that there exists a prima facie against Accused No.32 and accused No.33. Firstly, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has taken this court through the materials which are produced along with charge sheet. Learned SPP has argued that the accused at the time of seeking discharge has to rely upon the materials which have been placed along with the charge sheet and he cannot produce any other materials in order to substantiate his contention. Though it has been submitted by Accused No.32 that he had published Urdu booklet calling upon the general public to refrain from making deposits in the company of accused No.1 and its entities, the same requires to be considered during the course of trial. It is also been - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 submitted that serious allegation of entering into conspiracy has been leveled against Accused No.32 who is also President of accused No.33-Trust. In order to consider the question of conspiracy the court is required to look into the materials which have been furnished along with the charge sheet. It is submitted by the learned SPP that as per their own application they have admitted to have received huge sum of amount i.e., at one instance a sum of Rs.50 lakh towards construction of building of accused No.33 Trust and subsequently, it has been admitted in their application itself that they have received a sum of Rs.11,20,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Crore Twenty Lakhs only) towards further construction. By pointing out the same, the learned SPP has argued that though it has been contended by the accused persons that it was a donation amount which they have received voluntarily, the same requires to be considered at the time of trial. Question of whether the donations were made voluntarily or out of the conspiracy which Accused No.32 had entered with accused No.1 is a matter which requires to be considered during the course of trial. It is also been submitted that the statement of the witnesses which were recorded during the course of investigation would clearly indicate about the overt act of accused No.32. Lastly he has submitted that it is undisputed fact that the accused No.33 Trust through Accused No.32 had purchased several properties i.e., three properties at Deoband Tehsil, Saharanpur District, Uttar Pradesh and out of that two properties purchased on the very same day i.e., on 23.05.2016 and the total sale consideration were to the tune - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 of Rs.1.67 Crores. It is his submission that the unearthing of a large extent of money and investments being made by Accused No.32 towards purchase of property at Deoband Tehsil, Saharanpur District would clearly indicate that he had utilized the ill-gotten money of accused No.1 and its group of entities and through that ill-gotten money, they had purchased several properties. By pointing out the same, he has submitted that there are sufficient materials on record to indicate the overt act of accused No.32 and accused No. 33. 14. With respect to the offences being committed under Sec.420 of IPC, it is his submission that the Accused No.32 who was enjoying a respectable position amongst the followers of his religion had dishonestly induced them to make some investment of their hard earned money in the financial company of accused No.1 and its group of entities, though he was aware of the fact that the accused No.1 Mohammed Mansoor Khan would cheat and defraud. The investigation also indicated of collecting several materials wherein several rounds of negotiations had taken place between accused No.1 and Accused No.32 through accused No.29. By pointing out all these aspects and by placing reliance on the statements recorded under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C., coupled with the materials obtained, the learned SPP had submitted that there exists a triable case and strong suspicion has been made out against the accused No.32 and accused No.33 with respect to the commission of alleged offences. Lastly he has submitted that the court at the stage of appreciating the case for the purpose of framing - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 of charge, has to consider that whether there exists materials to frame charges and the burden of appreciation will not be as high as that of appreciating the case for the purpose of conviction or proving the guilt of accused person. By pointing out the same, he has sought for dismissal of the application. 15. Heard the arguments of both parties and perused the materials. 16. The points that arise for my consideration are; 1. Whether the applicant/ accused No.32 Shuaibullah Khan and accused No.33 Madarasa Mashiul Uloom Educational and Charitable Trust have made out grounds for allowing the discharge application U/Sec.227 of Cr.P.C.,? 2. What Order ? 17. My finding to the above points are as under; Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : As per final order for the following: R E A S O N S 18. Point No.1: In the instant case, initially charge-sheet was filed against other accused persons. Subsequently, supplementary charge sheet came to be filed against Accused No.32 Shuaibullah Khan and accused No.33 Madarasa Mashiul Uloom Educational and Charitable Trust represented by Accused No.32. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 19. Before adumbrating to the factual aspects of the case, once again, the entire allegations which are leveled against the accused persons is required to be recapitulated. In the instant case, it has been specifically stated that M/s.IMA and its group of companies were into bullion trading and had ventured into various business activities like bullion trading, construction business, education, jewellery business and health care and were in fact having around 18 entities. It is also alleged by the Investigating Agencies that the IMA had collected funds from various investors by alluring them of higher returns and also the present accused person had played an active role in furtherance of collecting the deposits by M/s.IMA by instructing and propagating to the general public that the deposits made by them were being utilized for investment and the returns earned were all Halal since there was no money lending transaction which could be termed as Haram. Further, it is noticed from the records that the M/s.IMA had collected huge deposits from general public and since they had failed to return the amount to the depositors, a complaint came to be registered before the concerned Police. Subsequently, number of complaints being filed had swelled up before various police stations and there was necessity to entrust the investigation to a specialized agency. As such, the Government of Karnataka had thought it fit to form a Special Investigation Task force (SIT) for investigating the offence and later on it was handed over to CBI authorities as per the provisions of Section 5 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. In the instant case, the investigating agency, on completion of the investigation - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 has filed charge-sheet. At this juncture, the court is required to look into the materials to ascertain whether a prima-facie case is made out for the purpose of framing of charge. 20. Admittedly, in the instant case, a direct allegation has been leveled against the accused No.1 i.e., Mohammed Mansoor Khan, who is the founder and also the Director of IMA. It is also pertinent to note that IMA is having 18 sister concerned involved into various business activities like bullion trading, construction business, education, jewellery business, health care etc. Under the circumstances, the overt act which is alleged against the present accused No.32 and accused No 33 is to be deciphered from the materials collected in the charge sheet and it is required to be appreciated. 21. In the instant case, the accused No.32 and accused No 33 have filed application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., seeking for discharge on the ground that no prima- facie material is available. It is submitted that the impugned act of this court in taking cognizance itself is bad. It has been submitted in the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for Accused No.32 that the court had proceeded to take cognizance without there being any materials. In order to appreciate the said aspect, the court has to carefully look in to the materials which has been placed along with the charge sheet and already order passed with respect to taking of cognizance. At the time of filing supplementary charge sheet the above case was pending before XXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Prl. Special Judge for CBI - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 Cases at Bengaluru and subsequently, the case came to be transmitted to this court since sitting / former MLA accused No.29 Sri Roshan Baig was involved in the above case. It would be appropriate to look into the order sheet wherein my Predecessor in office has passed a reasoned order with respect to taking of cognizance. In that order it has been contended that the Accused No.32 and Accused No 33 who were not directly connected with the affairs of the accused No.1 and accused No.16, they appear to have actively canvassed for them wherein they had allured general public to make deposits in the financial company of M/s. IMA and its group of entities. It is also been narrated that the act of Accused No.32 in making propagation on behalf of accused No.1 and its sister concerns and also subsequent act of receiving funds indicate existence of prima facie case for the purpose of taking cognizance. On perusal of the materials in the charge sheet which indicates that sufficient materials are collected by the Investigating Agency and as such his contention with respect to taking cognizance without there being any materials on record is a fallacy and accordingly, said contention is rejected. 22. Before adverting to other aspects which has been urged by the accused persons in the above case, it would be appropriate to consider the scope of discharge application under Sec.227 of Cr.P.C., in the instant case. It is pertinent to note that Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2017) 3 SCC 198 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Fatehkarn Mehdu) has clearly held that at the time of - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 framing of charge the court is not concerned with the proof of allegation and rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there exists a strong suspicion against the accused person. The portion of the aforesaid judgment is herewith extracted as follows: “26. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section 397 CrPC at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 23. It is relevant to note at this juncture, that it is well settled principle of law that at the time of considering the application under Sec.227 Cr.P.C., the court is only required to sift and weigh materials only for ascertaining existence of materials available for framing of charge and it is further held that a strong suspicion is sufficient to frame charges and to proceed in the case. The said ratio was laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its celebrated judgment rendered in - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 (1979) 3 SCC 4 (Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & another) wherein it has been held as follows: “10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge: (1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.” (emphasis supplied)” 24. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment reported in (2020) 2 SCC 290 (State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Charan Bansal) wherein it is held as: Scope of Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. 39. The court while considering the question of framing charges under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case has been made out against the accused. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. If the material placed before the court discloses grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing charges and proceeding with the trial. The probative value of the evidence brought on record cannot be gone into at the stage of framing charges. The court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter, the evidence is not to be weighed as if a trial is being conducted. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 533] where it has been held that at the stage of framing charges under Sections 227 or 228 CrPC, if there is a strong - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence, then the court should proceed with the trial. 40. In a recent judgment delivered in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat [Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547] decided on 24-4- 2019, this Court has laid down the law relating to framing of charges and discharge, and held that all that is required is that the court must be satisfied with the material available, that a case is made out for the accused to stand trial. A strong suspicion is sufficient for framing charges, which must be founded on some material. The material must be such which can be translated into evidence at the stage of trial. The veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged at this stage, nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused at the stage of framing charges. The court is not to consider whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused, or whether the trial is sure to end in the conviction. 42. The essential ingredients of criminal conspiracy as per judicial dicta are: 42.1. an agreement between two or more persons. 42.2. agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; or - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means 44. A criminal conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain direct evidence. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in R. Venkatkrishnan v. CBI [R. Venkatkrishnan v. CBI, (2009) 11 SCC 737 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 164]. The manner and circumstances in which the offence has been committed, and the level of involvement of the accused persons are relevant factors. Each conspirator plays his separate part in one integrated and united effort to achieve the common purpose. Each one is aware that he has a part to play in the general conspiracy, to accomplish the common object. 45. Conspiracy is mostly proved by circumstantial evidence by taking into account the cumulative effect of the circumstances indicating the guilt of the accused, rather than adopting an approach by isolating the role played by each of the accused. The acts or conduct of the parties must be conscious and clear enough to infer their concurrence as to the common design and its execution. Reliance is placed on the judgment of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu [State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1715] . 25. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments is required to be applied to the case on hand to ascertain, whether there exists material for framing of charge against the accused persons. The submission made by Accused No.32 is that he is innocent and law abiding citizen and he has not committed any offence. It has also been - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 argued that the Accused No.32 formed the accused No.33 Trust in the year 1984 and had involved in the philanthropic activities in providing Education to poor children and orphans and free boarding and lodging along with academic materials to them. Apart from the above, they had denied rest of the averments alleged in the charge sheet. In the application, they had contended that they intended to construct building to the accused No.33 Trust. It is their contention that though they have denied all the contention, they were not in a position to ascertain whether it had obtained donation from ill-gotten amount or from valid source. In order to ascertain the same, the court has to examine the statement of witnesses in careful manner. 26. The statement of Sri Mohammed Zainulabiddin speaks about the business which was being run by accused No.1 Mohammed Mansoor Khan towards collecting investment from general public. The statement which has been recorded by the Investigating Agency clearly indicate that in the year 2017 a necessary direction in the form of ‘Fatwa’ was being issued by Darul Uloom Shah Valiullah Madarasa and was signed by Mufti’s of the Madarasa. After that the accused No.1 Mohammed Mansoor Khan influenced the said witness through Sri R.Roshan Baig, who was holding responsible position in the society. It is further narrated in the statement that even though he had objected to those requests, he had continued to speak against IMA in Friday Sermon and in other programmes. It is also been stated that Accused No.32 issued a book titled ‘My - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 Views About IMA’ wherein the said book would clearly indicate of giving lot of hope and confidence of IMA Investment collection and the returns given by IMA was Halal and not Haram. Still the question which requires consideration at this point is with respect to the financial establishments that were involved in the management or with the collection of funds by IMA group of entities. In the instant case, as noticed from the records, the Accused No.32 after expressing his opinion amongst his followers had created a situation, which would help M/s IMA in collection of funds and later on accepting of donations from the very same institution indicates of quid pro quo. If for the sake of arguments it is contended that the Accused No.32 had expressed his opinion and there was no intention to influence the general public to make investments, the same would have been a different aspect. In the instant case, the Accused No.32 after publishing of the book titled above had made active overt act to allure and to induce the general public to make necessary investments in M/s IMA financial institutions. Even otherwise the contention of accused that he had only expressed his opinion by making a voluntarily propagation towards IMA and also receiving funds voluntarily in the form of donations towards construction of building is a matter which requires to be established during the course of trial. That apart the other submission that accused No.32 after issuing booklet in Urdu language stating that investment in IMA is not ‘Haram’, and also a Fatwa being issued in Friday Sermon, can only be considered during the - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 course of full fledged trial and not at the stage of appreciating discharge application. 27. The statement of the witness also indicates that Accused No.32 Moulana Mafti Shuaibullah Khan had got benefit of donation from IMA approximately of Rs.11,20,00,000/- and also three properties were purchased by him in Deoband Tehsil of Saharanpur District, Uttar Pradesh. The accused has contended that the amount which were all received were voluntarily in the form of donations and even they were intimated to Income Tax authorities by bringing to their notice as it was mentioned in their tax returns. Once again at the cost of repetition it is to be held that the same requires to be considered during the course of trial, since necessary materials are required to be produced in order to justify their contention. 28. The other aspect which is required to be considered once again is that whether the alleged donations made to the Trust of Accused No.33 by IMA institutions can be termed as voluntary donations. When the statement of witnesses is considered it indicates that several donations were received by the Trust from the financial institutions / entities. In order to appreciate the same the statement of CW184 Sri Abdul Rahaman S/o late Abdul Khealiq, Accountant, Madarasa-e-Maseeul Uloom recorded on 6.8.2021 is required to be looked into. CW-184 Abdul Rahaman speaks about accepting donations from IMA towards the construction of building. CW185-Sri Fasi Khan S/o Shuaibullah Khan speaks about the decisions taken by - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 the Trust in respect of purchasing of properties in Deoband in the name of his father Accused No.32 Shuaibullah Khan. Said statement also assumes importance for the reason that Accused No.32 has to explain why the property was purchased in his name though the Trust was in existence. The statement of CW185 indicates that three properties situated at Deoband, Uttarpradesh were purchased by Accused No.32 since the Trustees of the above accused No.33-Trust have insisted that the property may be registered in the name of Accused No.32 himslef as they were not in a position to travel to Deoband for registration purpose. The said statement clearly gives rise to a serious suspicion about the contention of Accused No.32 that the properties were alleged to have been purchased for the benefit of the Trust by utilizing the donations of IMA. Said act of Accused No.32 in registering properties in his name and not in the name of the Trust would only indicate a strong suspicion which would only fortify the case of the prosecution at this juncture of considering prima facie case for discharge application. If only the contention of Accused No.32 with respect to hardship of the Trustees towards travel was true, there was alternative available for them to execute necessary authorization documents to get the property executed in the name of the Trust. Even Accused No.32 is also the Trustee and the properties were standing in the name of Accused No.32 himself would give raise to a serious suspicion with respect to the allegations leveled against Accused No.32 and Accused No.33. - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 29. The prosecution has also contended that a criminal conspiracy was being entered by Accused No.32 with accused No.1 and in furtherance of the same, the amount in the form of donations were being received by Accused no.32 is matter which is required to be considered during the course of trial and also by looking into the materials which are available in the charge sheet. Time and again it is held that there may not be any direct evidence to indicate the existence of conspiracy since it will always be hatched up in darkness and executed in secrecy. The court in order to appreciate the existence of conspiracy has to consider the attending circumstance and also the circumstantial evidence which is placed before the court. In this regard, the Court has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 461 (Nazir Khan v. State of Delhi) wherein it is held as: 20. As noted above, the essential ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy is the agreement to commit an offence. In a case where the agreement is for accomplishment of an act which by itself constitutes an offence, then in that event no overt act is necessary to be proved by the prosecution because in such a situation, criminal conspiracy is established by proving such an agreement. Where the conspiracy alleged is with regard to commission of a serious crime of the nature as contemplated in Section 120-B read with the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 120-A, then in that event mere proof of an agreement between the accused for commission of such a crime alone is enough to bring about a conviction under Section 120-B and the proof of any overt act by the accused or by any one of them would not be necessary. The provisions, in such a - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 situation, do not require that each and every person who is a party to the conspiracy must do some overt act towards the fulfilment of the object of conspiracy, the essential ingredient being an agreement between the conspirators to commit the crime and if these requirements and ingredients are established, the act would fall within the trappings of the provisions contained in Section 120-B. (See : Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar [1995 Supp (1) SCC 80 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 60 : AIR 1994 SC 2420] .) 21. Conspiracies are not hatched in the open, by their nature, they are secretly planned, they can be proved even by circumstantial evidence, the lack of direct evidence relating to conspiracy has no consequence. (See : E.K. Chandrasenan v. State of Kerala [(1995) 2 SCC 99 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 329 : AIR 1995 SC 1066] .) 22. In Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1988) 3 SCC 609 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 711 : AIR 1988 SC 1883] (AIR at p. 1954) this Court observed : (SCC pp. 732-33, para 275) “275. Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The prosecution will often rely on evidence of acts of various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their common intention. The prosecution will also more often rely upon circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the court must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together in the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the latter does. It is, however, essential that the offence of conspiracy requires some kind of physical manifestation of agreement. The express agreement, however, need not - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 be proved. Nor actual meeting of two persons is necessary. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient.” Conspiracy can be proved by circumstances and other materials. (See : State of Bihar v. Paramhans Yadav [1986 Pat LJR 688 (HC)] , Pat LJR p. 709, para 35.) “To establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution has not to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or service in question could not be put to any lawful use. Finally, when the ultimate offence consists of a chain of actions, it would not be necessary for the prosecution to establish, to bring home the charge of conspiracy, that each of the conspirators had the knowledge of what the collaborator would do, so long as it is known that the collaborator would put the goods or service to an unlawful use. (emphasis in original) (See : State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa [(1996) 4 SCC 659 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 820 : JT (1996) 4 SC 615] , SCC p. 668, para 24.) 23. We may usefully refer to Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India [(1993) 3 SCC 609 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 961 : JT (1993) 3 SC 203] . It was held : (SCC pp. 617-18, paras 8-10) “8. … It is not necessary that each conspirator must know all the details of the scheme nor be a participant at every stage. It is necessary that they should agree for design or object of the conspiracy. Conspiracy is conceived as having three elements : (1) agreement; (2) - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 between two or more persons by whom the agreement is effected; and (3) a criminal object, which may be either the ultimate aim of the agreement, or may constitute the means, or one of the means by which that aim is to be accomplished. It is immaterial whether this is found in the ultimate objects. The common law definition of ‘criminal conspiracy’ was stated first by Lord Denman in Jones case [R. v. Jones, (1832) 4 B & Ad 345 : 110 ER 485] that an indictment for conspiracy must ‘charge a conspiracy to do an unlawful act by unlawful means’ and was elaborated by Willies, J. on behalf of the judges while referring the question to the House of Lords in Mulcahy v. R. [(1868) LR 3 HL 306] and House of Lords in unanimous decision reiterated in Quinn v. Leathem [1901 AC 495 : 85 LT 289 : (1900-03) All ER Rep 1 (HL)] : ‘A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more, to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a design rests in intention only, it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it into effect, the very plot is an act in itself, and the act of each of the parties, promise against promise, actus contra actum, capable of being enforced, if lawful; and punishable if for a criminal object, or for the use of criminal means.’ 9. This Court in E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay [AIR 1961 SC 1762 : (1961) 2 Cri LJ 828] held: ‘The gist of the offence is an agreement to break the law. The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed to be done has not been done. So too, it is an ingredient of the offence that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal act. It may comprise the commission of a number of acts. Under Section 43 of the Penal Code, - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 1860, an act would be illegal if it is an offence or if it is prohibited by law.’ In Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab [(1977) 4 SCC 540 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 5] the rule was laid as follows : (SCC p. 543, para 9) ‘… The very agreement, concert or league is the ingredient of the offence. It is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long as they are co-participators in the main object of the conspiracy. There may be so many devices and techniques adopted to achieve the common goal of the conspiracy and there may be division of performances in the chain of actions with one object to achieve the real end of which every collaborator must be aware and in which each one of them must be interested. There must be unity of object or purpose but there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to one another, amongst the conspirators. In achieving the goal several offences may be committed by some of the conspirators even unknown to the others. The only relevant factor is that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be and purported to be in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy even though there may be sometimes misfire or overshooting by some of the conspirators.’ 10. In Mohd. Usman Mohd. Hussain Maniyar v. State of Maharashtra [(1981) 2 SCC 443 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 477] it was held that for an offence under Section 120-B IPC, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the conspirators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act, the agreement may be proved by necessary implication.” 30. When the said postulate is applied to the case on hand, allegation of committing offence under - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 Sec.120B has been leveled against Accused No.32. In order to better appreciate the said allegation of conspiracy, the statement of other witnesses is to be looked into from the materials which have been produced in the charge sheet. In this regard the statement of CW186 Mr.Iftikhar Ahmed S/o Mukhtar Ahmed recorded on 23.03.2021 is to be looked into. In his statement he has stated that he was Principal of Taleel Ul Quaran, Bannerghatta Main Road, Bismillah Nagar, Bangalore and he was opposing IMA from the very beginning as it was running a Ponzi Scheme. He has further stated that Accused No.32 authored a book titled ‘My Views About IMA’ and the same book was published in English and accused No.1 Mohammed Mansoor Khan had distributed to the investors whenever general public raised any qualms with respect to business activities and questioned about the nature of amount as ‘Halal’ or ‘Haram’. He has also specifically stated that he had attended a meeting convened by Accused No.32 Shuaibullah Khan to clear the doubts on IMA, wherein Accused No.32 tried to convince people to support IMA. In the said meting accused No.1 Mohammed Mansoor Khan was also present and in that meeting when the witness himself along with Shamshuddeen and Nainullabuddin questioned accused No.1 Mohammed Mansoor Khan whether he knew any business which could guarantee returns at 30 to 40% in a year so as to return the profit to the people, the Accused No.1 had remained reticent. This statement assumes importance for the reason that the alleged act of accused No.32 and his specific contention in his application that he never intended to propagate about the - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 investments in favour of the IMA and its group of entities would be falsified. Thus by looking in to the statement of witness CW186, the contention of Accused No.32 is to be required to be considered in full fledged trial and at this stage a strong suspicion is being raised with respect to existence of material against the present accused persons. 31. However, at this juncture, with respect to the contention of entering into criminal conspiracy, the court has also taken into account of the statement of CW187 Sri Shamshuddin Bijli S/o K.M.Bijli recorded on 23.03.2021. He has stated in his statement about authoring of book titled ‘My Views about IMA’ by Accused No.32. He has specifically stated about the propagation which were being made by Accused no.32 during regular sermon. Though the veracity of the said statement is required to be ascertained during the course of trial, at this juncture of appreciating the materials for framing charges, a strong suspicion is raised, which would be suffice to proceed to frame charges. 32. Further, the statement of CW188 Sri Mohammed Zubair recorded on 19.3.2021 is also requires to be appreciated. In his statement he has stated that accused No.32 Shuaibullah Khan was recognized as most prominent Mufti in Bengaluru and was being followed by all the Muslims in Bangalore. It is his statement that a group of Ulemas in India were divided in supporting or opposing IMA with respect to the investments being made in IMA Company. He has further narrated in his statement that when some of the Ulemas had raised qualms about IMA and had issued Fatwa - 38 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 against it, the Accused No.32 Shuaibullah Khan had called a meeting at Maseehul Uloom building in Shivajinagar and accused No.1 Mohammed Mansoor Khan was also called in the said meeting. It is his specific assertion that he had personally witnessed the said meeting, wherein all Ulemas including Samsuddin Bijlee and Zainullabuddin were present and accused No.32 had tried to persuade others towards giving favorable statement towards the financial activities of accused No.1. He has also further stated that an article was also published by Accused No.32 Shuaibullah Khan in ‘Takbeer E Musalsal’ Urdu Magazine in this regard. It is his specific assertion that in the year 2016 a meeting was convened along with 20 prominent businessmen of Bangalore calling for donations towards construction of Madarasa and in the said meeting accused No.1 volunteered to take care of the entire expenditure towards the construction of Trust Building of Accused No.32, which was also accepted by others. When the said aspect is appreciated in the touchstone of the allegations leveled against the present accused person, it definitely raises a strong suspicion that the Accused No.32 had propagated and vouchsafed the financial activities of M/s IMA in order to receive the donations from the money collected by M/s IMA. If for the sake of arguments, the Accused No.32 had insight knowledge to author a book titled as “ My views of IMA” then obviously it is to be presumed that he had a definite knowledge about the financial activities of the company and even after that if he had propagated the same, it is to be construed that he had played an active role in conspiring - 39 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 with Accused No.1 to cheat and defraud the gullible investors and also he was party to said commission of act, since the schemes flouted by M/s.IMA were all Ponzi schemes. It is also relevant to note that the witness has stated initially 3 crore was projected for construction, however, Rs.12 Crore was spent totally by accused No.1 Mohammed Mansoor Khan for the entire construction. He has also stated that initially an amount of Rs.50 lakh was sent through bank. Remaining amount was spent in cash. He has also identified the cash payments made for construction of Madarasa by identifying the vouchers. The witness also stated about purchasing of property in the name of Accused No.32 from the funds of IMA at Deoband Tehsil, Saharanpur District, Uttarpradesh. 33. Further the statement of witness CW189 Smt.Aphroz W/o late Nasir Ahmed, recorded on 20.07.2021 reveal that she had identified the sale deeds wherein she was the vendor for selling two house properties situated at Deoband, Saharanpur District, Uttarpradesh to Accused No.32 Shuaibullah Khan. Further she has stated that she had received a sale consideration of Rs.28,00,000/- though it was being narrated that they had received a sale consideration of Rs.9 lakhs in the sale deed. Even though the veracity of the said statement requires to be considered during the course of full- fledged trial to ascertain what was the exact amount of sale consideration, it definitely raises a strong suspicion that the consideration amount disclosed was not the real figures and something more was spent - 40 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 towards the purchase of the property and in that event, the nature, source and flow of amount is also required to be appreciated to ascertain whether the source of funding tallied with the alleged money siphoned off by M/s IMA. 34. That apart the statement of Mohammed Islam, Smt.Nasreen, (CW-190 and CW-191) who were residents of Deoband were the persons who had sold two properties to Accused No.32 also indicates that they had received sale consideration of Rs.30,00,000/- and Rs.31,50,000/- respectively. Though the sale deed depicts of receiving sale consideration of Rs.9,00,000/- each. The said statements are required to be tested about its veracity during the course of trial. Admittedly, Accused No.32 states that he had purchased the properties for the well being and benefit of the Trust. However, the properties are standing in the individual name of Accused No.32 Shuaibullah Khan and whether it was purchased for the benefit of the accused No.33 Trust is matter which requires to be appreciated during the course of trial. At this juncture, admittedly, certain amount either by way of donation voluntarily or otherwise had passed from the financial entity of Accused No.1 and whether it was voluntary or by way of quid pro quo is a triable aspect. If the properties at Deoband was to be purchased for the benefit of Trust, then it would have been purchased in the name of the Trust itself and definitely not in the name or individual capacity of Accused No.32. The said act would only fortify the case of prosecution that the purchase of property was made in furtherance of the criminal - 41 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 conspiracy entered by accused No.1 and Accused No.32 and also as an act of quid pro quo, which Accused No.32 had committed by propagating positively about M/s.IMA and its group of entities. The details of transfer of amount is being stated by CW192 – Sri Gaurav Jain, Branch Head, Shivalik Small Finance Bank Limited, Deoband, recorded on 20.07.2021. 35. CW193-Sri Manoj Kumar Tyage Sub- Registrar, Deoband Sub-Registrar Office, Uttarpradesh has stated about the registration of the sale deeds. The statement of CW194 Mohammed Faheemuddin who had graduated in Arabic at Deoband in 2003, is also requires to be appreciated. In his statement he has stated that he was teaching Arabic at Maseehul Uloom Madarasa owned by Shuaibullah Khan for about six years and he had good acquaintance with him. It is his statement that during 2009, accused No.32 and one Mr.Zuber along with himself had purchased shop situated at No.08, Minara Market, Deoband, Saharanpur and they all had equal partnership in the property. However, there was no partnership deed entered by them and they had only oral agreement between them. He has specifically stated that he did not have any connection with M/s.IMA Group of companies and he never had any personal meeting with accused No.1. It is his contention that on several occasion he used to received orders for supply religious text materials to different Madarasa’s which he used to send and accused No.32 had very close contact with accused No.1 Mohammed Mansoor - 42 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 Khan. It has also been stated that accused No.32 Shuaibullah Khan had informed him about the funds donated by accused No.1 in the name of Madarasa Masihul-Uloom and wanted to make investment at landed properties at Deoband. The said statement clearly indicates of a criminal conspiracy and a dishonest intention on the part of accused No.32 to purchase a property on behalf of accused No.1. At the cost of repetition, it is been made clear that the court is only appreciating the materials to ascertain the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case. The statement the aforesaid witness later on indicates of various deliberations being made towards identifying the property and also purchasing of a property. If for a moment it is to be appreciated that accused No.32 had purchased land at Deoband, Sharanpur District, in the joint name, then the question of acting for the benefit of the Trust will also requires to be appreciated scrupulously. The statement of the aforesaid witness also indicates of the commission which was paid to Sri Sulaiman and his associates and also the amount which was paid to the vendors through cash and also through account. It has been stated that the actual consideration paid for the aforesaid properties was to an extent of Rs.1 Crore including commission. The aforesaid aspects though require to be verified during the course of full fledged trial, would cast a serious aspersions about the overt act of accused No.32. The aforesaid witness has also specifically stated that cash withdrawal of Rs.1.41 crore was made only to make payments towards consideration of the properties which were purchased in the name of accused No.32. He has also - 43 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 stated that the amount transferred to the Bank account of Faisal Publications to an extent of Rs.23,30,000/- was made towards purchase of books, which was sold to different persons including M/s.IMA. The aforesaid acts would clearly indicate a definite positive overt act being alleged against accused No.32 and he acting a link between the financial transaction of Accused No.1 and his financial entities. At the cost of repetition, it is to be noticed that the allegation is leveled against Accused NO.1 of siphoning off the money of general public and transferring the same through various persons including Accused No.32 and also Accused No.33 Trust. 36. The statement of CW196 Smt.Kauser Rafiq would clarify the overt act of accused No.32 in the above case. It has been stated by her that in the year 2016 she had sold her house at Frazer Town and she was intending to invest the sale proceeds. It is stated that at that point of time, she had heard about Accused No.32 Mufti Shuaibullah Khan propagating IMA Investments on various sermons and being influenced by his propagation and support to IMA, had decided to invest money in M/s.IMA and its group of entities. It is narrated by her that Accused No.32 had influenced her by assuring that the amount which was to be invested in M/s IMA would be Halal money and not Haram money. On the basis of the assurances rendered by Accused No.32 had invested a sum of Rs.7.5 lakhs in M/s.IMA in monthly income plan on various dates in the year 2017. In her statement she had stated that, initially she had received returns of 3% and - 44 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 in the year 2019 the returns were not regular and in all she had received only a sum of Rs.1 lakh as return from IMA. Further she has stated that when she had approached to get back her investment, she was not repaid with the same and accordingly, she had decided to lodge a complaint. The aforesaid statement clearly indicates about the active role played by accused to attract the gullible persons to make investment by impressing them religiously. Though the veracity is required to be considered at the time of full dressed trial, at this juncture a prima facie case is made out. 37. The statement of CW197 Mohammed Sarfuddin indicates that he was the teacher in Madarasa-E- Maseehul Uloom since 1985 and it was being run by accused No.32 Shuaibullah Khan who was Founder Trustee. It is his statement that after demise of the Chairman of the Trust by name Sri Abdul Rasheed and Dastagir Khan, Secretary, the decision was taken to appoint Sri Fasi Khan as Secretary of the Trust and since then he was functioning as Secretary of the Trust and also the accused No.32 Shuaibullah Khan was the Founder Trustee who was looking after the day to day activities of the Trust. When the entire materials are carefully appreciated, it would clearly indicate of existence of a prima facie case against the present accused person. 38. The court has also relied upon the authorities of the Hon'ble Apex Court with respect to appreciation of the documents and materials at the stage of discharge application. With respect to the allegation of hatching - 45 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 conspiracy, the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in 2023 SCC Online SC 1294 (State of Gujarat Vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao) wherein, the principles and guidelines for adjudicating the discharge application has been reiterated, which is extracted and reads as follows; “14: This Court in the aforesaid judgment has also laid down principles to be considered for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 particularly in the context of prayer for quashing of charge framed under Section 228 Cr.P.C. is sought for as under: “27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these two provisions i.e. Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code and the fine line of jurisdictional distinction, now it will be appropriate for us to enlist the principles with reference to which the courts should exercise such jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult but is inherently impossible to state with precision such principles. At best and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be: 27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. - 46 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. 27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. 27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. 27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.” 39. With the aforesaid judgments and careful appreciation of unwavering ratio which has been laid down - 47 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 by the Hon’ble Apex Court it is clear that the scope of 227 of Cr.P.C., is very limited and at the juncture of considering the application, the court is required to look into the materials which has been placed before the court. If the materials placed discloses of existence of a prima-facie case or raises a strong suspicion, the same would be sufficient for the purpose of framing of charge. 40. It is well settled principle of law that entering into conspiracy will take place in darkness and the same cannot be ascertained with direct evidence. Only by looking into the attending circumstances, entering into conspiracy can be ascertained. In this regard, the Court has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 461 (Nazir Khan v. State of Delhi) wherein it is held as: 20. As noted above, the essential ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy is the agreement to commit an offence. In a case where the agreement is for accomplishment of an act which by itself constitutes an offence, then in that event no overt act is necessary to be proved by the prosecution because in such a situation, criminal conspiracy is established by proving such an agreement. Where the conspiracy alleged is with regard to commission of a serious crime of the nature as contemplated in Section 120-B read with the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 120-A, then in that event mere proof of an agreement between the accused for commission of such a crime alone is enough to bring about a conviction under Section 120-B and the proof of any overt act by the accused or by any one of them would not be - 48 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 necessary. The provisions, in such a situation, do not require that each and every person who is a party to the conspiracy must do some overt act towards the fulfilment of the object of conspiracy, the essential ingredient being an agreement between the conspirators to commit the crime and if these requirements and ingredients are established, the act would fall within the trappings of the provisions contained in Section 120-B. (See : Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar [1995 Supp (1) SCC 80 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 60 : AIR 1994 SC 2420] .) 21. Conspiracies are not hatched in the open, by their nature, they are secretly planned, they can be proved even by circumstantial evidence, the lack of direct evidence relating to conspiracy has no consequence. (See : E.K. Chandrasenan v. State of Kerala [(1995) 2 SCC 99 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 329 : AIR 1995 SC 1066] .) 22. In Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1988) 3 SCC 609 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 711 : AIR 1988 SC 1883] (AIR at p. 1954) this Court observed : (SCC pp. 732-33, para 275) “275. Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The prosecution will often rely on evidence of acts of various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their common intention. The prosecution will also more often rely upon circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the court must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together in the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not - 49 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 render them conspirators, but the latter does. It is, however, essential that the offence of conspiracy requires some kind of physical manifestation of agreement. The express agreement, however, need not be proved. Nor actual meeting of two persons is necessary. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient.” Conspiracy can be proved by circumstances and other materials. (See : State of Bihar v. Paramhans Yadav [1986 Pat LJR 688 (HC)] , Pat LJR p. 709, para 35.) “To establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution has not to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or service in question could not be put to any lawful use. Finally, when the ultimate offence consists of a chain of actions, it would not be necessary for the prosecution to establish, to bring home the charge of conspiracy, that each of the conspirators had the knowledge of what the collaborator would do, so long as it is known that the collaborator would put the goods or service to an unlawful use. (emphasis in original) (See : State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa [(1996) 4 SCC 659 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 820 : JT (1996) 4 SC 615] , SCC p. 668, para 24.) 23. We may usefully refer to Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India [(1993) 3 SCC 609 : 1993 SCC (Cri) - 50 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 961 : JT (1993) 3 SC 203] . It was held : (SCC pp. 617-18, paras 8-10) “8. … It is not necessary that each conspirator must know all the details of the scheme nor be a participant at every stage. It is necessary that they should agree for design or object of the conspiracy. Conspiracy is conceived as having three elements : (1) agreement; (2) between two or more persons by whom the agreement is effected; and (3) a criminal object, which may be either the ultimate aim of the agreement, or may constitute the means, or one of the means by which that aim is to be accomplished. It is immaterial whether this is found in the ultimate objects. The common law definition of ‘criminal conspiracy’ was stated first by Lord Denman in Jones case [R. v. Jones, (1832) 4 B & Ad 345 : 110 ER 485] that an indictment for conspiracy must ‘charge a conspiracy to do an unlawful act by unlawful means’ and was elaborated by Willies, J. on behalf of the judges while referring the question to the House of Lords in Mulcahy v. R. [(1868) LR 3 HL 306] and House of Lords in unanimous decision reiterated in Quinn v. Leathem [1901 AC 495 : 85 LT 289 : (1900-03) All ER Rep 1 (HL)] : ‘A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more, to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a design rests in intention only, it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it into effect, the very plot is an act in itself, and the act of each of the parties, promise against promise, actus contra actum, capable of being enforced, if lawful; and punishable if for a criminal object, or for the use of criminal means.’ - 51 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 9. This Court in E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay [AIR 1961 SC 1762 : (1961) 2 Cri LJ 828] held: ‘The gist of the offence is an agreement to break the law. The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed to be done has not been done. So too, it is an ingredient of the offence that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal act. It may comprise the commission of a number of acts. Under Section 43 of the Penal Code, 1860, an act would be illegal if it is an offence or if it is prohibited by law.’ In Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab [(1977) 4 SCC 540 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 5] the rule was laid as follows : (SCC p. 543, para 9) ‘… The very agreement, concert or league is the ingredient of the offence. It is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long as they are co- participators in the main object of the conspiracy. There may be so many devices and techniques adopted to achieve the common goal of the conspiracy and there may be division of performances in the chain of actions with one object to achieve the real end of which every collaborator must be aware and in which each one of them must be interested. There must be unity of object or purpose but there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to one another, amongst the conspirators. In achieving the goal several offences may be committed by some of the conspirators even unknown to the others. The only relevant factor is that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be and purported to be in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy even - 52 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 though there may be sometimes misfire or overshooting by some of the conspirators.’ 10. In Mohd. Usman Mohd. Hussain Maniyar v. State of Maharashtra [(1981) 2 SCC 443 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 477] it was held that for an offence under Section 120-B IPC, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the conspirators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act, the agreement may be proved by necessary implication.” 41. That apart, the provision of Section 9 of KPIDFE Act, which is a punishment clause and also provision of Section 2(4) with respect to Financial Establishment is required to be looked into. Financial Establishment has been defined as under; (2) “Deposit” includes and shall be deemed always to have included any receipt of money or acceptance of any valuable commodity by any Financial Establishment to be returned after a specified period or otherwise, either in cash or in kind or in the form of a specified service with or without any benefit in the form of interest, bonus, profit or in any other form, but does not include,- (iv) any amount received from,- (a) the Industrial Development Bank of India (b) a State Financial Corporation, (c) any financial institution specified in or under section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956(Central Act 1 of 1956) or - 53 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 (d) any other institution that may be specified by the Government in this behalf; (v) amounts received in the ordinary course of business by way of,- (a) security deposit, (b) dealership deposit, (c) earnest money, (d) advanced against order for goods or services 42. The definition would clearly indicate that it includes person or group of individuals accepting deposits under any scheme or arrangement or in any other manner would come under the provisions and rigors of KPIDFE Act. Admittedly, in the instant case, several crores of deposits were collected by M/s.IMA from various customers and general public and the said amount was being diverted to purchasing properties. If the said aspect is again accepted, then it would clearly indicate that the accused No.32 had played a specific overt act towards inducing the customers to make deposits in the financial institutions of M/s IMA. Under the circumstances, the grounds which has been urged by the accused No.32 does not holds water and it is a definite case for trial wherein, a strong prima-facie case has been pointed out against present accused No.32 wherein it is indicated that he had received the donations from M/s IMA in the form of quid pro quo. - 54 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 43. Last but not the least the court has looked in to the authorities which had been relied upon by the learned counsel for accused No.32. The judgments with respect to filing of charge sheet has already been answered by this court and though it has been contended that the provision of Sec.173(8) of Cr.P.C., could not be invoked for the reason that the investigating agency have not obtained necessary permission, does not holds water. Though several authorities have been furnished by the learned counsel for accused No.32, the court has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 515 ( State V Hemendhra Reddy) wherein it is held as: 48. Section 173(8) of the CrPC may be fragmented or dissected as under: (1) Further investigation can be done in respect of an offence wherein report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate; and (2) During further investigation, the officer-in- charge has power (a) to obtain further evidence, oral or documentary, (b) to forward to the Magistrate, a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed, (3) The provisions of sub sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such further report or reports. 49. Sub section (1) of Section 173 of the CrPC provides that every investigation by the police shall - 55 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 be completed without unnecessary delay and sub section (2) of Section 173 of the CrPC provides that as soon as such investigation is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government. 50. Under sub section (2) of the Section 173 of the CrPC, a police report (chargesheet or Challan) is filed by the police after investigation is complete. 51. Sub section (8) of Section 173 of the CrPC, states that nothing in the section shall be deemed to preclude any further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate. 52. Thus, even where chargesheet or Challan has been filed by the police under sub section (2) of Section 173 of the CrPC, the police can undertake further investigation in respect of an offence under sub section (8) of Section 173 of the CrPC. (Reference : Article titled “Different Aspects of Section 173(8) of the CrPC” by D. Nageswara Rao, Prl. JCJ, Manthani.) What is the meaning of the term “Further Investigation”? 53. In Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar reported in (2009) 6 SCC 346, this Court held that, “further investigation within the meaning of provision of Section 173(8) CrPC is additional; more; or supplemental. “Further investigation”, therefore, is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started - 56 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether.” 44. The said authority is aptly applicable to the case on hand. In the instant case, the Investigating Agency had obtained necessary permission whenever a supplementary charge sheet came to be filed. Necessary cognizance was also taken on the basis of the materials which were available along with the supplementary charge sheet. As such the authorities which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for accused No.32 in the judgments reported in 1977 AIR SC 1754, 2010 Crl.L.J. 3963 Kerala are not applicable to the case on hand. 45. The learned counsel for accused has also relied upon the several authorities wherein ratio has been laid down by the Superior Court that when there was no application filed by the Investigating Agency to produce documents the same cannot be considered as a ground for conducting further investigation. In the instant case, it is pertinent to note that at the time of filing supplementary charge sheet the Investigating Agency had reserved their right to file additional / supplementary charge sheet. As such the aforesaid authorities are also not applicable to the case on hand. 46. The learned counsel for accused No.32 has relied upon the two judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2014)2 SCC 401 and 2022 JT (7) 428 which speak about law of precedents as enumerated under Article - 57 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 141 of the Constitution of India. The same requires no observations. 47. The learned counsel has also relied upon another judgment wherein it has been held that when a judgment was passed based on improper precedent, the same can be reviewed the same can reviewed considering binding precedent. At this juncture, the court is only appreciating the discharge application and has not reached the penultimate stage of judgment. 48. Learned counsel for accused No.32 has also relied upon various authorities under Sec.173(8) of Cr.P.C., which indicates that the police chief has no power to order for further investigation. The court has already clarified the position of law in this regard. 49. The judgments relied upon the learned counsel for accused are not helpful to the case on hand, though there is no dispute/qualms being raised with respect to the ratio laid thereupon. By looking in to the entire factual aspects of the case, it is crystal clear that a strong prima facie case has been made out against accused No.32, who is also representing accused No.33 – Trust. Accordingly, the discharge application is devoid of merits and rejected. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the Negative. 50. Point No.2 : In view of above observations on Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER - 58 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 The application filed U/Sec.227 of Cr.P.C., by the accused No.32 Sri Shuaibullah Khan and accused No.33 Madarasa MasihUlUloom Educational and Charitable Trust, is hereby dismissed by holding that there are sufficient grounds to frame charges against them.” 5. As rightly held by the Trial Court, the various contentions urged by the petitioners in their discharge application would necessarily have to be considered only during trial and consequently, I am of the view that the Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the discharge application filed by the petitioners. Under these circumstances, upon re-evaluation, reconsideration and re- appreciation of the entire material on record, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court does not contain any illegality or infirmity nor can the same said to be capricious or perverse warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is needless to state that all rival contentions between the parties including the contentions urged in the present petition are left / kept open to be decided by the Trial Court during trial and no opinion is expressed on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions. - 59 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24548 CRL.RP No. 1095 of 2024 6. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SD / SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 CT: BHK