A bald chargesheet without any material against an accused affects his right under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Karnataka High Court has held while quashing a criminal case against a company director.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has quashed the pending criminal case, including the order taking cognizance, against the fifth accused in a forgery and cheating case arising out of the alleged removal of a director from a construction company, holding that continuing the prosecution without any material against him would be a gross abuse of process of law [Sri Nagaraja v. State of Karnataka and Another].
Justice V Srishananda, sitting as a single judge, allowed the petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The quashing applies only to the petitioner, and the Court made clear that its observations will not affect the merits of the case against the other accused.
The case
The petitioner, a businessman in the ready mix concrete trade, was charged as accused No. 5 in C.C. No. 164 of 2021 before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No. 311 of 2018 of Channammanakere Achukattu Police Station. The offences invoked include Sections 120B, 506, 408, 406, 471, 420, 467, 468, 465, 469 and 419 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 65 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The complainant alleged that the managing director of M/s Vinyas Constructions Private Limited (accused No. 1) pressed him to transfer shares and then, with the company secretary (accused No. 4), removed him from the directorship by uploading Form DIR-12 on the MCA website on 2 October 2018 on the strength of a forged resignation letter dated 20 September 2018. The petitioner was then inducted as a director in his place. The complainant’s allegations of forgery were directed against accused Nos. 1 and 4. The petitioner was arraigned on the allegation that he colluded and conspired with them.
The petitioner’s case was that he became a director without any remuneration, knew nothing of the other directors, took no part in the company’s affairs, and resigned on 11 June 2019, a fact he told the investigating officer. The State argued that, as the person who benefited from the alleged fraud, a prior understanding with accused Nos. 1 and 4 had to be presumed. The complainant added that positive evidence of intent is seldom available in such cases.
What the Court said
Justice Srishananda found that the chargesheet contained only omnibus allegations of collusion and conspiracy, and that no material had been collected beyond the oral statements of the complainant and other witnesses. The Court observed that the material gathered was only against accused Nos. 1 and 4, and that the digital signatures were misused by accused No. 4 and not by the petitioner.
Pertinently, the investigation material in the form of charge sheet do not find a single documentary evidence which would be prima facie sufficient to conclude that present petitioner had colluded with the accused Nos.1 and 4 to remove respondent No.2 from the Directorship and in his place petitioner was required to be appointed as the Director.
ALSO READ: Karnataka High Court: False Promise Of Marriage Offence Under Section 69 BNS Cannot Apply To Women
The Court also asked why the petitioner would have resigned from the directorship if he were really the beneficiary of a conspiracy, a question it said remained unanswered by the State or the complainant. On the cheating charge, it held that a wrongful gain to the accused and a corresponding wrongful loss to the complainant are essential, and neither was shown.
When no financial benefit is obtained by the present petitioner, there cannot be any wrongful loss caused to the respondent No.2 or corresponding wrongful gain to the present petitioner, which is a sine qua non to proceed against the present petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
Conspiracy and the need for material
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohd. Khalid v. State of West Bengal (2002) 7 SCC 334, the Court accepted that positive evidence need not be available in the chargesheet to establish a criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC. It held, however, that the prosecution is not absolved from placing material on record that prima facie indicates the petitioner’s role.
Here, it said, nothing but oral statements was available, and what exactly the petitioner did was not forthcoming. The Court also noted the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajendra Bihari Lal and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2026) 7 SCC 339 on the parameters for quashing a chargesheet, while recording that the facts there were not akin to this case.
The Article 21 holding
Filing of charge sheet thus affects the individual right of a citizen of the country as is enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, especially when the charge sheet is bald and without any material.
Holding that the petitioner had made out a case for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, the Court allowed the petition and quashed C.C. No. 164 of 2021 insofar as he is concerned. Pending applications were consigned to record.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court Gives Big Relief in 2009 Violence Case, Quashes Chargesheet Against 28 Advocates
Why the judgment matters
The ruling ties the quashing of a chargesheet to personal liberty. A chargesheet that names a person on the strength of bare assertions, without any material tracing his role, is not a neutral step: it exposes him to trial and, in the Court’s view, engages Article 21.
The decision is also a reminder that a conspiracy charge needs more than the label of collusion. Even where direct evidence is not required, the prosecution must show some material pointing to the accused’s own part. The case against the remaining accused is unaffected, and the allegations against them remain untested.
Case Title: Sri Nagaraja v. State of Karnataka and Another [Writ Petition No. 15535 of 2022 (GM-RES)]
Bench: Justice V Srishananda, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: September 24, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam M., with advocate Likith R.P., for the petitioner; High Court Government Pleader Waheeda M.M. for the State; advocate Aiyappa K.G. for respondent No. 2.