Authority: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

Order Date: 25 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – M/s. Varsha Cables Private Ltd. (registered at No. 344, Hebbal Industrial Area, Mysuru) and its Chairman, Managing Director and Shareholder Sri. Puttaraju P. Gowda (aged about 52). Respondents – the State of Karnataka represented by Vijay Nagar Police Station, Mysuru (through the State Public Prosecutor) and the accused, Sri B. Kumar (Bhojappa Kumar), sole proprietor of M/s. Varsha Industries, 65‑A‑2, Hootagalli Industrial Area, Mysuru.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Criminal Petition No. 3673 of 2019 filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) seeking to quash the order dated 21‑03‑2019 passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru (Crl.R.P.No.313/2018). That revisional order had set aside the trial court order dated 23‑12‑2017 (C.C.No.126/2014) which had dismissed the accused’s application for discharge under Section 239 CrPC.
  • Background: A private complaint (PCR No.14/2012) was lodged invoking Section 200 CrPC. The police registered an FIR (Annexure‑C) and filed a charge sheet (Annexure‑D) covering offences under IPC Sections 104, 177, 403, 406, 420, 405, 415, 425 and Sections 23‑25 of the Trade Marks Act. An additional charge sheet (Annexure‑E) later added Sections 468 and 471 IPC for forgery and fabrication of documents. The accused filed a discharge application under Section 239 CrPC (Annexure‑F), which the trial court rejected (Annexure‑J). The revisional court thereafter discharged the accused, prompting the present petition.
  • Allegations: The petitioners allege that the accused, while serving as Director of Varsha Cables Pvt. Ltd., forged documents, used the company’s letterhead to mislead customers, created a spurious board‑meeting minute dated 12‑10‑2009, altered BIS licence details, and falsely represented that Varsha Cables had been restructured into “Varsha Industries”. Specific letters dated 24‑10‑2009 to Cipla Ltd. and Jubilant Organosys Ltd., and a letter dated 04‑11‑2009 to the Bureau of Indian Standards, are cited as evidence of the fraud.
  • Legal Contentions:
  • Petitioners argued that Section 239 CrPC can be invoked only when the complaint and charge sheet are groundless; the presence of prima‑facie allegations in both the original and additional charge sheets precludes discharge.
  • Respondent’s counsel contended that the matter is essentially a civil dispute, citing earlier civil suits (O.S.No.961/2012, O.S.No.7/2012, O.S.No.10/2015) which had been dismissed, and that the State, not the private complainant, is the aggrieved party for criminal prosecution.
  • Numerous Supreme Court precedents were cited, including Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977), Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra (2014), State by Karnataka Lokayukta v. M.R. Hiremath (2019), Srilekha Sentilkumar v. DPS, CBI (2019), and J.K. International v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2001), to argue that the revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction by examining defence material and that discharge applications must be decided on the basis of charge‑sheet material alone.
  • Court’s Reasoning: The High Court held that the revisional court erred by:
  • Considering the agreement between the parties and defence content, which is impermissible at the discharge stage.
  • Failing to give due weight to the specific allegations in the PCR, original charge sheet, and additional charge sheet, especially the forgery and document‑fabrication offences.
  • Ignoring the principle that the State is the primary prosecuting authority and that private complainants have a right to be heard when discharge is sought.
  • Overstepping its revisional jurisdiction under Section 435 CrPC (old code) by substituting the trial court’s findings.
  • Outcome of Arguments: The Court affirmed that the revisional court’s order was a miscarriage of justice and that the trial court’s rejection of the discharge application must stand.

Final Outcome

  • The criminal petition is allowed.
  • The order of the Revisional Court dated 21‑03‑2019 (Crl.R.P.No.313/2018) is set aside.
  • The trial court order dated 23‑12‑2017 (C.C.No.126/2014) rejecting the Section 239 discharge application is restored.
  • The observations made by this Court shall not influence the trial court’s further consideration of the matter on merits.

Topics: Criminal Procedure, Discharge Application, Corporate Fraud