Authority: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

Order Date: 17 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Ms. Pavitra Ramanujam, Director of Generis Consulting Services Private Limited (established 2013, 50% shareholding).
  • Respondents: Directorate of Enforcement, Bengaluru Zonal Unit (ED) and, in the criminal matter, the State of Karnataka represented by Koramangala Police Station and individual Ramamnuja.
  • Writ Petition (WP No.7336/2026): Filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quash of an ED email/summons dated 19‑02‑2026 and the investigation arising from F.No.ECIR/BGZO/15/2023.
  • Criminal Petition (Crl.P No.8938/2021): Filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking quash of a charge‑sheet dated 05‑01‑2021 in CR.No.26/2020 and the trial court order dated 06‑01‑2021 taking cognizance of offences under IPC Sections 406, 418, 420, 468, 471, 120B, 504, 506 read with Section 34.
  • Allegations: The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, together with other accused (including the CEO, accused No.2), conspired to obtain Rs 83 lakh from a complainant, subsequently transferring Rs 6.27 crore to the personal accounts of accused No.2 and family members, and that the petitioner’s company failed to refund the amount, causing loss to multiple complainants.
  • Financial Details Cited:
  • Total alleged fraud amount: Rs 7,10,95,467.
  • Direct transfer to accused No.2’s personal account: Rs 6,27,95,467.
  • Investment by MEC Concepts India Ltd to Generis Consulting Services: Rs 83,00,000, which was immediately transferred to accused No.2’s personal account.
  • Partial repayment by accused No.2: Rs 42,50,000.
  • Bank credit to petitioner’s account (01‑10‑2017 to 30‑09‑2019): Rs 49,971, with subsequent repayments of Rs 75,000 on 22‑02‑2019 and 12‑03‑2019.
  • Petitioner’s Arguments: No direct involvement; vicarious liability should not attach; absence of specific allegations under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 504, 506; reliance on several Supreme Court judgments (e.g., Sunil Bharti Mittal v CBI, Maksud Saiyed v State of Gujarat, Vijay Tata v Endorsement Directorate, etc.) to argue that mere directorship without overt act does not attract criminal liability.
  • Respondent’s Arguments: Petitioner, as 50% shareholder and director, authorized the CEO (accused No.2) to act; the amount was invested and not refunded; the charge‑sheet specifically implicates the petitioner; the FIR and investigation were properly instituted.
  • Court’s Reasoning: The court found that factual disputes regarding the petitioner’s participation, the existence of an agreement, and the flow of funds require a full trial. The cited judgments do not preclude prosecution where the director holds a substantial share and the charge‑sheet alleges involvement. The court rejected the petitioner's claim of lack of specific allegation and held that the matter cannot be dismissed under Section 482 at this stage.

Final Outcome

  • Criminal Petition No.8938/2021: Dismissed.
  • Writ Petition No.7336/2026: Dismissed, as the underlying predicate offence remains pending trial.

Topics: Court Order, Fraud Investigation