Filing 'Bald Chargesheet' Without Any Evidence Affects Accused's Right To Life Under Article 21: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that filing a chargesheet based on omnibus allegations by complainant without any evidence affects the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

“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,” Justice V Srishananda said.

The court further held that a complainant cannot be said to have suffered wrongful loss— an essential requirement to constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)— if the accused derived no financial gain, while allowing the petition filed by one Nagaraja V.

The petitioner sought to quash the FIR and the chargesheet registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 419, 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 467, 468, 469, 471, 506, 120B (Punishment of criminal conspiracy) of the IPC read with Sections 65 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Noting that the petitioner did not draw a “single paisa” as a company director and had resigned from the post upon learning about the alleged fraud against the complainant (founding director of the company), the High Court said, “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.”

The case stems from the complaint filed by the second respondent, the complainant and the founding director of M/s Vinyas Construction Private Limited. He alleged that the company's managing director and company secretary (Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 4 in the FIR, respectively) forged his resignation letter and uploaded Form DIR-12 on the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) portal using digital signatures without his consent.

The complainant further alleged that the petitioner (Accused No. 5) colluded with other accused to illegally oust the complainant from the directorship and get himself appointed in his place as part of a criminal conspiracy.

Justice Srishananda found that there was no documentary evidence to prima facie establish the role of the petitioner in the alleged collusion or conspiracy.

“Despite such information being provided by the petitioner that he did not draw a single paisa from M/s Vinyas Construction Private Limited nor any perquisites and he has resigned on 11.06.2019, the Investigation Officer proceeded to file the charge sheet against the petitioner herein only on the basis of the statement made by the complainant and other witnesses,” the Court said.

It added, “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.”

Placing reliance on the Supreme Court ruling in Mohd. Khalid vs. State of West Bengal (2002 7 SCC 334), the Court reiterated that while “positive evidence” need not be available in the chargesheet material to attract the offence of Section 120B of the IPC, the Court may look at other available evidence on record to infer that there existed a criminal conspiracy.

However, in the present case, there was no material available on record except the statement of the complainant and other witnesses, the Court said.

“But what exactly was the role played by the present petitioner is also not forthcoming as the material collected by the Investigation Agency is only as against the accused Nos.1 and 4. Likewise, for the offences committed under Sections 506, 408, 420, 465, 468, 467, 469, 471 of Indian Penal Code, not even an iota of material is found against the present petitioner. It is specifically found from the records that digital signatures are misused by accused No.4 and not by the present petitioner,” the Court observed.

It held, “Therefore, viewed from any angle this Court does not find prima facie materials to proceed against the present petitioner and order taking cognizance which is impugned in the present petition do not disclose application of mind as to the role played by the present petitioner so as to proceed with the case.”

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the criminal case filed against the petitioner.