Karnataka High Court
Sri Mallikarjun Sali vs State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1422
CRL.P No. 200538 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200538 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SRI MALLIKARJUN SALI
S/O SIDDAPPA SALI
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/O KALLA HANGARAGA VILLAGE
JEVARAGI TALUK
KALABURAGI DISTRICT-585310
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR SR. COUNSEL;
SRI. BEERESHA H.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA AND:
UDAGI
Location: HIGH STATE OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA CHOWK POLICE STATION
KALABURAGI
(FIU UNIT, CID BANGALORE)
REPRESENTED BY OFFICE OF
THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
KALABURAGI-585103
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.SUDARSHAN M, SPL. PP)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1422
CRL.P No. 200538 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD) U/SEC
528 OF BNSS, BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AND ENTIRE
CHARGE SHEET INITIATED AGAINST PETITIONER IN SPL C.
CORR NO.07/2022 BY CHOWK POLICE STATION KALABURAGI
FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC 109, 114, 119, 120(B),
201, 202, 204, 212, 409, 411, 420, 465, 468, 471 R/W 34, 36
AND 37, 149 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTION 7(a),
7(A), 8 R/W 13(1) AND 13(2) OF PREVENTION CORRUPTION
ACT 1988 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, (SPL.COURT)
KALABURAGI.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CAV ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the proceedings
against the petitioner/accused No.28 in Spl.CCorr.No.7/2022,
arising out of Crime No.48/2022, registered by Chowk Police,
for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 114, 119,
120B, 201, 202, 204, 409, 411, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 477(a)
r/w Sections 34, 36, 37 and 149 of IPC and Section 7(a)(c),
7(A) and 8 r/w Section 13(1)(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1998 (for shot “P.C. Act“), pending on the file of Prl.
District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1422
CRL.P No. 200538 of 2025HC-KAR
2. The factual matrix of the case is, one K.H. Dilip
Kumar, Police Inspector, FIU, CID Office, Bengaluru lodged the
complaint that, Karnataka Police Department had called for
filling up of 545 vacancies of Police Sub-Inspector as per
Notification dated 21.01.2021 and in the ensuing examination,
certain candidates have committed malpractice and on enquiry,
it was found that along with candidates, other mediators and
Police officials have involved in the malpractice. On the
strength of the said complaint, the respondent-Police initially
registered FIR against one Veeresh and others in Crime
No.48/2022.
3. Subsequently, the Police Commissioner, Kalaburagi,
vide order dated 10.04.2022, transferred the investigation to
CID, Bengaluru. Accordingly, the said Police took up the
investigation and in all arrested 34 accused persons including
this petitioner. After completing investigation, the said Police
laid charge sheet against the petitioner and others for the
aforementioned offences, by arraying the petitioner as accused
No.28. Subsequently, a supplementary charge sheet was filed
on 03.03.2023 under Section 109, 114, 119, 120B, 201, 202,
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1422
CRL.P No. 200538 of 2025HC-KAR
204, 409, 411, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 477(a) r/w Sections 34,
36, 37 and 149 of IPC and Section 7(a)(c), 7(A) and 8 r/w
Section 13(1)(2) of P.C. Act.
4. The charge sheet materials disclose that the
petitioner who was working as the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Aland Sub-Division, Kalaburgai District, allegedly called
accused No.24 and 26 and told them that, there are complaints
against them with regard to malpractice in the examination of
PSI and allegedly demanded Rs.80,00,000/- for not to register
the case against them. However, on a negotiation between
themselves and accused No.14, the petitioner agreed for a sum
of Rs.10,00,000/- and received the said illegal gratification
through accused No.14 by way of cash at Udanoor road. With
these charges, the petitioner was arrested on 05.05.2022 and
later, released on bail on 05.01.2023. Hence, the petitioner is
before this Court to quash the proceedings against him.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
6. Apart from urging several contentions, the learned
Senior counsel for the petitioner primarily contended that, the
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1422
CRL.P No. 200538 of 2025HC-KAR
crime was registered and investigated by the respondent-Police
which comes under Kalaburagi City Police and not within the
jurisdiction in which the petitioner was incharge i.e. Alanda
Sub-division, Kalaburagi. As such, there was no occasion to this
petitioner either to promise or receive any amount from
accused Nos.24 and 26 for not to register the case against
them. He further contended that, the investigation does not
reveal that the petitioner and accused No.14 knew each other
and there are no call details between them.
7. According to the learned Senior counsel, though it
is alleged that the petitioner received Rs.10,00,000/-, the
Police were able to recover only Rs.3,60,000/- from the
possession of the petitioner. According to the learned Senior
counsel, the said amount belongs to the petitioner, who had
obtained a gold loan from Muthoot Finance Corporation on
18.04.2022 by pledging gold ornaments and received the said
money to the Bank account of the petitioner in the Karnataka
Bank, which was withdrawn on 19.04.2022. Though the
petitioner offered this explanation with documents, the same
has not considered by the respondent-Police. Lastly he
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1422
CRL.P No. 200538 of 2025HC-KAR
contended that, except the voluntary statement of accused
No.14, absolutely no other piece of evidence/circumstance
appears against this petitioner to implicate him in the alleged
crime. In such circumstance, the offences alleged against this
petitioner do not attract against him. Hence, the continuation of
proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of
process of Court. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
8. Per contra, learned Special counsel for the
respondent-State submitted that though the petitioner initially
implicated in the alleged crime based on the voluntary
statement of accused Nos.24, 26 and 14, thereafter, based on
the voluntary statement of this petitioner, Rs.3,60,000/- cash
was seized at his instance vide panchanama, which was placed
in property list in PF No.37/2022. Nevertheless, during the
course of investigation, the respondent-Police obtained the Call
Detail Registers (CDR) of the mobile numbers of petitioner,
accused Nos.24 and 14 and those SIMS are in the name of
petitioner, accused Nos.14 and 24. In such circumstance, there
are prima facie materials forthcoming against this petitioner for
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1422
CRL.P No. 200538 of 2025HC-KAR
the offences he has been charge sheeted. Hence, he prays to
dismiss the petition.
9. I have given my anxious consideration both on the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective
parties and the documents available on record.
10. As could be gathered from records, after
registration of case in Crime No.48/2022, the Police
Commissioner, Kalaburagi transferred the investigation to CID
Bengaluru, vide order dated 10.04.2022. Accordingly, the said
Police took up the investigation and arrested 34 accused
persons. The petitioner being accused No.28, the specific
allegation averred in the charge sheet against him is that he
was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police of Aland Sub-
Division, called up accused Nos.24 and 26 and told them that
there are complaints against them with regard to a scam in the
examination which was conducted for selection to the post of
Police Sub-Inspector and allegedly demanded Rs.80,00,000/-
for them. Since accused Nos.24 and 26 were not in a position
to pay the said amount, it was agreed that they will pay a sum
of Rs.10,00,000/- to him. The petitioner received the said
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1422
CRL.P No. 200538 of 2025
HC-KAR
illegal gratification for not to register any complaint against
accused Nos.24 and 26 in the PSI scam by informing them to
hand over the money to accused No.14-Rudragouda @ R.D.
Patil, who is the prime accused in the scam and was known to
this petitioner prior to the incident. The charge sheet materials
further reveals that the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was handed
over to this petitioner by accused No.14 at Udanoor Road in an
Innova Car bearing registration No.KA-32/P-4576.
11. After the arrest of this petitioner, the respondent-
Police seized Rs.3,60,000/- at his instance and it is specifically
stated by this petitioner that Rs.6,40,000/ was spent for his
personal expenses. The seized amount of Rs.3,60,000/- was
placed before the Magistrate in PF No.37/2022. The explanation
offered by the petitioner is that the said amount was obtained
by him from Muthoot Finance Corporation by pledging the gold
ornaments on 18.04.2022 and received the money to his
Karnataka Bank account and withdrawn the same on
19.04.2022 appears to be not a probable defence, as the
amount was seized at the instance of petitioner on 11.05.2022
i.e., after lapse of 22 days. Further, the petitioner has not given
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1422
CRL.P No. 200538 of 2025
HC-KAR
any such description/receipt of the cash withdrawn from the
Bank on that day.
12. Be that as it may, the call details obtained by the
respondent-Police reveals that on 08.10.2021, there are four
phone calls between accused No.14 and this petitioner. The
voluntary statement of accused No.24 reveals that, one week
after completion of PSI examination, the petitioner called him
through his mobile phone and demanded money not to
implicate him and accused No.26 in the scam. The said
voluntary statement of accused No.24 corroborates the call
details of accused No.14 and the petitioner. Further, during the
course of seizure of the amount at the instance of petitioner, a
detail seizer panchanama was drawn by the Police, one Umesh
and Vishwanath are the witnesses for the said panchanama. In
such circumstances, on overall perusal of the charge sheet
materials, in my considered view, there are sufficient prima
facie materials forthcoming against this petitioner for the
offences he has been charge sheeted. It is pertinent to mention
at this juncture, the petitioner being the Deputy Superintendent
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1422
CRL.P No. 200538 of 2025
HC-KAR
of Police, no vengeance whatsoever against him by the
respondent-Police to falsely implicate him in the alleged crime.
13. In such circumstance, quashing the criminal
proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint
does not disclose any offence, or is frivolous, vexatious or
oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not
constitute offence of which cognizance has been taken by the
magistrate it is open for this Court to quash the same. It is not
necessary that a meticulous analysis of case should be done
before trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction
or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and
consideration of the allegation therein, in the light of the
statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are
disclosed there would be no justification for this Court to
interfere as held in the case of SAU. KAMAL SHIVAJI
POKARNEKAR vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
reported in 2019 (14) SCC 350.
14. In the instant case, the charge sheet materials
discloses a prima facie case against the petitioner for the
offence he has been charge sheeted. In such circumstances,
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1422
CRL.P No. 200538 of 2025
HC-KAR
the same has to be tested in a detailed trial. Hence, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, suffice to
hold that the proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage.
Accordingly, the petition lacks merits and the same is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
HKV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2
CT-BH
