ADVERTISEMENT
Karnataka High Court
Sri R M Ajay vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 March, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5918/2024
BETWEEN:
SRI. R.M. AJAY,
S/O. R.B. MOHAN REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
NOW WORKING AS POLICE INSPECTOR,
STATE INTELLIGENCE, BENGALURU.
R/AT NO.328/A,
9TH 'D' MAIN ROAD, HRBR LAYOUT,
1ST BLOCK, KALYAN NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560043. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADVOCATE - [THROUGH V.C.])
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU,
NOW LOKAYUKTA PS,
M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
REP. BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
CRIME-I, CITY CRIME BRANCH,
BENGALURU-560009.
2
3. SRI. RAJENDRA D.S.,
DY. S.P.ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU,
NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.B.PATIL, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR R1;
SRI. TEJAS, HCGP FOR R2;
NOTICE ISSUED TO R3 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.17/2020
REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENTS AS AGAINST THE
PETITIONER ARRAIGNING HIM AS ACCUSED NO.2 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 7A, 13(1)(a) R/W
13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988, PENDING
BEFORE THE LEARNED XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-24) AND TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED CHARGE SHEET DATED 21.06.2025 FILED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.1/POLICE IN CR.NO.17/2020 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7(a) OF PREVENTION
OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 WHEREIN THE PETITIONER HEREIN
HAS BEEN ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO.2 IN
SPL.CC.NO.1602/2025, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED
XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU
(CCH-24) (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE -'H') AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 06.03.2026 THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
3
CAV ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying
to grant the following reliefs:
" a) Quash the FIR in Crime No.17/2020 registered by
the respondents as against the petitioner arraigning
him as accused No.2 for the offences punishable under
Sections 7A, 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 19881 pending before
the learned XXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge
at Bengaluru (CCH-24( and
aa) Quash the impugned charge sheet dated
21.06.2025 filed by respondent No.1/Police in Crime
No.17/2020 for the offences punishable under Section
7(a) of PC Act, wherein the petitioner herein has been
arraigned as accused No.2 in Spl. CC No.1602/2025
pending on the file of learned XXIII Addl. City Civil &
Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-24) (Produced as
Annexure-H).
b) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble
Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the
case, in the interest of justice."
1
For short, 'PC Act'
4
2. The factual matrix of the case of the
respondent/Lokayukta is that they have registered the FIR on
21.05.2020 in Crime No.17/2020 for the offences punishable
under Sections 7(A), 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the PC
Act against the petitioner, who has been arraigned as accused
No.2. This petition was filed to quash the FIR, which is marked
as Annexure-A. The certified copy of the complaint in Crime
No.17/2020 is produced as Annexure-B, so also the certified
copy of the order sheet in Crime No.17/2020 is produced as
Annexure-C.
3. The petitioner was working as Police Inspector,
Central Crime Branch (CCB), Bengaluru City in the Economic
Offences Wing. On 30.03.2020, the first information was filed
before Banaswadi PS as against one Surush and others alleging
the commission of offence under Section 420 of IPC in regard to
manufacture of N-95 Mask in their lab with fake seal and
certifications to provide standardization for the said mask.
Pursuant to the said first information, a case in Crime
No.164/2020 was registered by Banaswadi PS and the same was
5
transferred to CCB by the order passed by the Commissioner of
Police, Bengaluru City. It is the case of the prosecution that one
Sri. Guruprasad-Police Inspector was appointed as Investigating
Officer of Crime No.164/2020 and investigation was taken up.
When such being the case, the Joint Commissioner of Police,
Crime-I, Head of the Central Crime Branch, addressed a letter to
the respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioner and one
Sri.Prabhu Shankar, ACP, CCB have obtained illegal gratification
to close the case in Crime No.164/2020. Based on the same,
respondent No.2 herein recorded a statement on 12.05.2020
and started enquiry into the matter. Based on the said alleged
statement made by Sri. Shaji George on 12.05.2020, respondent
No.2 addressed a letter to respondent No.3 to take action
against the petitioner and Sri. Prabhu Shankar, ACP, CCB.
Pursuant to the same, the Cottonpet PS based on the said
alleged statement made before the respondent No.2 and on the
basis of communication made by the respondent No.2, have
registered an FIR against the petitioner in Crime No.63/2020
arraigning him as an accused for the offences punishable under
Section 384 read with Section 34 of IPC. A copy of FIR and
6
complaint in Crime No.63/2020 are produced as Annexures-D
and E. However, based on the communication made by
respondent No.2 to the respondent No.3 i.e. Deputy
Superintendent of Police, ACB submitted a request to the learned
XXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City
requesting the Court to permit him to carryout investigation in
respect of the aforementioned offences. Respondent No.1/Police,
in respect of the same incident and factual matrix, has
registered the case in Crime No.17/2020 dated 21.05.2020
invoking the provisions for the offences punishable under the PC
Act. It is also the case of the prosecution that Shaji George,
who is alleged to have stated that to assist the accused Surush
in Crime No.164/2020, he approached one Sri. Amjad. The said
Shaji George contacted the petitioner herein who promised that
he would coordinate with accused No.1/ACP-Prabhu Shankar and
requested for an amount of Rs.25 lakhs to drop him from the
said case. That on 30.03.2020 and 31.03.2020, the said Amjad
deposited Rs.5,00,000/- each and on 7.4.2020, the said Surush
deposited an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the account of Shaji
George. It is alleged that between 31.03.2020 and 9.4.2020,
7
the said amount was handed over to the petitioner/accused No.2
on various dates.
4. It is contended that with regard to the same
allegations, Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the
petitioner herein during the course of his employment and
pursuant to the same, charge was framed and the articles of
charge dated 10.07.2020 is produced as Annexure-F. In
Departmental Enquiry, the petitioner was exonerated of all the
charges leveled against him and the said Shaji George has
stated that he is unaware of Kannada Language and not aware
of the contents of Kannada Language. The statement of Surush
stating that the transaction with Amjad pertains to sale of car
and the fact that the prosecution witnesses 2 to 6 do not state
anything about the petitioner being involved in acceptance of
illegal gratification.
5. The Government of Karnataka vide Notification dated
16.05.2024 has exonerated the petitioner herein and confirmed
the findings of the Departmental Enquiry as per Annexure-G. It
is also contended that accused No.1 had approached this Court
8
seeking to quash the proceedings. This Court vide order dated
8.9.2021 in Crl.P.No.2470/2020, quashed the FIR as against
accused No.1. A copy of the order dated 8.9.2021 passed in
Crl.P.No.2470/2020 is produced as Annexure-H. The petitioner
being aggrieved by continuation of investigation in Crime
No.17/2020 was constrained to seek alternative and efficacious
remedy by way of the present petition seeking to quash the
impugned FIR and investigation. In the meanwhile, the
Investigating Officer has concluded the investigation and filed
charge sheet. Hence, the petitioner got amended the petition by
inserting paragraph-13A stating that the police have filed final
report as against the petitioner herein on 21.06.2025 alleging
the commission of offences under Section 7A of the PC Act and
this petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2. Aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner got amended the petition praying this Court
to quash the proceedings including the FIR and charge sheet.
6. Learned counsel Sri. Prasanna Kumar P appearing for
the petitioner, in his arguments, would vehemently contend that
the petitioner has not committed any offence and in the absence
9
of any material to connect the petitioner, the question of
continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is
unsustainable in the eye of law. The counsel with vehemence
would contend that the FIR can be registered based on either
complaint as defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
as pursuant to a cognizable offence in accordance with Section
154 of Cr.P.C. In the present case, the basis for registration of
FIR in Crime No.17/2020 is neither a complaint under Section
200 of Cr.P.C. nor as per the requirements of Section 154 of
Cr.P.C. and no first information or complaint is given to the
respondent No.1/Police in connection with the commission of a
cognizable offence, however, the Dy.SP, ACB has made a
request for commencing the investigation as against the
petitioner and others to the Court. In the present case, Dy.SP,
ACB is a person making the request to the learned Sessions
Judge seeking permission to investigate the matter and the very
same person has registered the FIR as against the petitioner
acting as Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station. There is no any
material for having committed the cognizable offence. The very
registration of Crime No.17/2020 as against this petitioner is
10
without any complaint with an intention of malafides. The
allegation made in Crime No.63/2020 and the allegation made in
the Crime No.17/2020 is one and the same, which is
impermissible in law. It is also contended that in order to invoke
the provisions of Section 7 of the PC Act, the existence of
demand and acceptance is sine-qua-non and the same is missing
in the case on hand. However, strangely on the very same facts
and allegations, subsequent FIR in Crime No.17/2020 has been
registered by the respondent No.1/Police, which is opposed to
law and the ingredients of offences under the PC Act is missing
and therefore, continuation of two proceedings against the
petitioner is nothing but harassment, and second FIR is
impermissible.
7. It is contended that the first information or the
alleged statement of Shaji Goeorge was recorded on
12.05.2020, which is after a lapse of more than 1 ½ months and
the same itself would indicate that the alleged statement of Shaji
George is an afterthought and leveled against the petitioner with
a sole intention to put him at inconvenience. It is contended
11
that the said delay in lodging the first information on 21.05.2020
i.e., ten days after recording the said statement of Shaji George
would itself create a serious doubt in the case of the prosecution
and indicates that registration of 2nd FIR is nothing but an
afterthought.
8. Having filed charge sheet, additional ground is
invoked in paragraph-24(a) to (d) of this petition that a perusal
of the entire charge sheet material, it is forthcoming that all the
statements and documents pursuant to the said investigation
have been obtained in the year 2020 and prior to September
2021. This Court vide order dated 8.9.2021 in
Crl.P.No.2470/2020 already quashed the proceedings in respect
of accused No.1 having perused all the materials. Hence, the
continuation of proceedings against this petitioner is erroneous
and the same requires to be quashed.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that this petitioner is not the Investigating Officer in Crime
No.164/2020 nor the part of investigation team, even not part of
the raiding group of officers and so also not cited as witness in
12
that case. When such being the case, recording the statement
of Shaji George and Amjad is nothing but false implication of this
petitioner. Hence, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings
against the petitioner, in view of this Court earlier had quashed
the case against the accused No.1 and apart from that, in
Departmental Enquiry, the present petitioner was exonerated.
The respondent/Police are relying on the alleged seizure of
cheques, screen shots of chattings, CCTV footages etc., which
pertains to Crime No.63/2020 of Cottonpet PS. This would run
contrary to the case of the 1st respondent/police that the
aforesaid case is independent and is not a second FIR arising out
of Crime No.63/2020 of Cottonpet PS.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his
arguments would vehemently contend that the present case is
liable to be dropped in view of observations made by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Ashu Surendranath Tiwari Vs.
Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & Another2. The
Departmental Enquiry is also based on the statement of Shaji
2
(2020) 9 SCC 636
13
George Thomas, who has been examined as PW1 and PW7-
Surush and all these materials were got marked and only upon
detail examination of the case, the petitioner was exonerated
and hence, the charge sheet leveled against the petitioner is
liable to be dismissed.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to
the notice of this Court the observation made at paragraph-43 of
the order dated 8.9.2021 in Crl.P.2470/2020, wherein this Court
was pleased to note that the subsequent case registered by
ACB/respondent was to overcome the interim order granted by
this Court pertaining to Crime Nos.63 and 64 of 2020 of
Cottonpet PS and the same is not permissible. The jurisdictional
police have filed 'B' final report in respect of Crime No.63/2020
of Cottonpet PS indicating no involvement of the petitioner. The
charge sheet filed by the respondent/Police relies upon the
seizures/recoveries of cheques/CCTV footages etc. made in
Crime No.63/2020 of Cottonpet PS and in view of filing of the
charge sheet, the same could not be continued.
14
12. Per contra, learned special counsel for
respondent/Lokayukta would submit that the Lokayukta Police
have investigated the matter and filed charge sheet. Learned
counsel brought to the notice of this Court to Volume-2, page-
252 and paragraph-3 of the charge sheet and contend that one
Mukesh has made statement on 22.05.2020, wherein he had
categorically stated that he was having an acquaintance with this
petitioner and he called the present petitioner to a particular
phone number and when he requested to help him in the case
registered against Surush, the petitioner informed him that as it
is a serious case, the ACP/accused No.1 is demanding more
amount of Rs.25 lakhs and the same was informed to Amjad and
he requested him to reduce the amount and again he called him
to the Inspector and the present petitioner informed him that he
had discussed with accused No.1 and the same is settled for an
amount of Rs.15 lakhs. In terms of the same, he informed the
same to Amjad, who in turn, informed him that he is going to
transfer the amount to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs and told him to
withdraw the same and give the same to the present petitioner.
Accordingly, the Manager of Amjad by name Shine Mukund
15
transferred to his Account No.409000487486, Ratnakar Bank
Limited (RBL), Koramangal Branch, an amount of Rs.2 lakh on
30.03.2020, Rs.1 lakh each three times to the tune of Rs.5 lakh;
and on 31.03.2020, Rs.2 lakh twices and Rs.1 lakh, in total Rs.5
lakhs and also on 7.4.2020, Surush transferred the amount to
his account to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs, in all Rs.15 lakhs and the
said amount was transferred from the account of Surush and
Amjad in order to hand over the same to the present petitioner.
Accordingly, he handed over the same to the present petitioner
and on receipt of the said amount of Rs.15 lakhs, the present
petitioner confirmed the same through WhatsApp. Learned
counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that the Court
has to take note of the foundational facts of the case and apart
from that, the statement of one Somashekar was recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The said Somashekhar has categorically
made statement before the Court on 3.3.2021 that the present
petitioner instructed him to get the amount drawn from the bank
and accordingly, the present petitioner gave him one cheque for
Rs.2,50,000/- and instructed him to meet the Lady Bank
Manager, thereafter, draw the money and handover the same to
16
the present petitioner. Accordingly, he met the Bank Manager
and drew the money and handed over the same to the present
petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent/Lokayukta would
contend that this Court has to consider the statement of Mukesh
as well as Somashekar, who made the statement before the
learned Magistrate for having handed over the amount to the
present petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that there is
a demand and acceptance, which requires to be proved in the
trial, so also digital evidence is available, which is collected and
the same is also to be proved; and the accused can get the
chance of rebutting the same.
13. Learned counsel would also contend that the mobile
phone of the present petitioner was seized by drawing mahazar,
which clearly discloses the conversation between Shaji George
and the present petitioner, which reflects in the seizure mahazar
with regard to demand and making of payment in RBL Bank
Account No. 409000487486, so also the conversation between
Shaji George and Sangeetha Vijaykrishnan, Bank Manager with
regard to the transactions dated 31.03.2020, 1.4.2020,
17
2.4.2020, 7.4.2020, 9.4.2020, 12.04.2020 and 5.5.2020 for
having made payment. Learned counsel also brought to the
notice of this Court the statement of Sangeetha Vijaykrishnan,
Bank Manager and also the seizure of pendrive for having drawn
the money by the said Somashekhar from RBL Bank and also
cheque given by the Proprietor, M/s. S3 Business Solutions Inc
and the said cheque was encashed by the said Somashekar and
the said amount was handed over to the present petitioner.
14. In reply to this, learned counsel for the petitioner
would submit that this Court in detail discussed while passing
the earlier order in Crl.P.2470/2020 and the material, which they
are relying upon, is inadmissible and there is no any recovery at
the instance of this petitioner. Apart from that, the alleged self-
cheque does not bear any signature of this petitioner and hence,
this Court has to quash the proceedings.
15. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner as well as learned counsel for the
respondent/Lokayukta and also respondent Nos.2 and 3, who
are formal parties, since other crime was registered in respect of
18
the very same incident, but in the case on hand, quashing is
sought for registration of the case by the Lokayukta Police.
Having considered the grounds urged in the petition as well as
oral submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties,
the following points would arise for consideration of this case:
a) Whether the petitioner has made out a ground
to quash the charge sheet proceedings against
him in coming to a conclusion that there are no
grounds to continue the proceedings against
the petitioner as contended in the petition?
b) What order?
16. Having perused the material available on record, this
petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2 and accused No.1 is the
then ACP and this Court, no doubt, had quashed the proceedings
against accused No.1 vide order dated 8.9.2021 in
Crl.P.No.2470/2020. It is important to note that the allegation
of prevention of corruption case is registered against accused
Nos.1 and 2 only on the ground that a demand was made to
close the case in Crime No.164/2020, which was registered
against one Surush. It is also to be noted that the material
19
against this petitioner is based on the statement of one Mukesh
and the said statement was made on 22.05.2020. This Court
has taken note of the fact that the said Mukesh was in touch
with this petitioner and in the name of ACP, this petitioner
demanded the money of Rs.25 lakhs that ACP is demanding
Rs.25 lakhs. But this statement is very clear that this petitioner
demanded the money in the name of ACP, but also says that the
request was made to reduce the amount and the same was
reduced to Rs.15 lakhs and hence, the same was informed to the
said Amjad and the amount will be transferred to his account
and withdrew that money and handed over the same to the
present petitioner. The details are given in the statement and
different amounts are transferred, in total Rs.15 lakhs (Rs.5 lakh
each). From the account of Surush, he had transferred on
7.4.2020 and also the account number was given i.e.,
40900487486, RBL Bank, Koramangal Branch.
17. It is also important to note that one Somashekhar
was examined before the learned Magistrate on 3.3.2021, who is
Head Constable and he categorically states that the present
20
petitioner called him over mobile phone bearing No.9900232323
on 2.4.2020 and asked him to come to a particular place, where
the petitioner handing over the cheque to him asked him to go
and meet the Lady Bank Manager for withdrawing the money,
and accordingly, he withdrew the money and handed over the
same to the present petitioner. So also, on 7.4.2020, in between
10 to 11 a.m., again the petitioner called the said Somashekar
over the phone to collect the cheque and withdraw the money,
accordingly, he collected the cheque and withdrew the money
and handed over the same to the petitioner. For having
withdrawn the money, he identifies himself in the CCTV footages
in respect of both dates i.e. on 2.4.2020 and 7.4.2020 and says
that only on the instruction of the present petitioner, he went
and withdrew the money and handed over the same to the
petitioner. It is also important to note that the statement of
Bank Manager Sangeetha was recorded on 30.05.2020 and she
also reiterates that Shaji George called her on 2.4.2020 and
7.4.2020 that he is sending self cheque with one person and she
brought the same to the notice of the Branch Manager Ajay and
without ID card, the amount was drawn and confirmed that the
21
said amount was given to the present petitioner. She further
says that as there were no one in the bank, Bank Manager Ajay
himself took the amount of Rs.2 lakhs and handed over to Shaji
George.
18. Learned counsel for the respondent/Lokayukta
brought to the notice of this Court the seizure of Pendrive in
respect of those two dates for drawing of money by
Somashekhar as well as self-cheque given by Shaji George. No
doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that
there is no any counter signature of the present petitioner on the
cheque, however, the same are triable issues, since there are
statements made before the Investigating Officer by the above
persons for having this petitioner dealt with the matter and only
for demanding the money, referred the name of accused No.1.
No doubt, this Court quashed the proceedings against accused
No.1 on the ground that there was no any material and there
were number of cases registered against accused No.1 in respect
of the very same incident. In the present case, no doubt there
were two FIRs, one is Crime No.63/2020 and the police having
22
found that no material to continue the said proceedings in
respect of the offences punishable under Section 384 read with
Section 34 of IPC, filed 'B' report. Now only one case is against
the petitioner i.e., demand and acceptance of money by invoking
the offences under the provisions of the PC Act. This Court
earlier made an observation that there were two cases and in
respect of the same incident, there cannot be two FIRs and
quashed the proceedings against accused No.1. In the case on
hand, specific allegations are made against the petitioner that
referring the name of ACP, he had demanded the money of
Rs.25 lakhs and the same was later reduced to Rs.15 lakhs. It is
also to be noted that from the account of Surush, who is the
accused in Crime No.164/2020, the amount was transferred in
total Rs.15 lakhs to the different accounts on different dates and
the said amount was withdrawn by the said Somashekar and his
statement is very clear that this petitioner only handing over the
self-cheque instructed him to draw the money and hand over the
amount and accordingly, he withdrew the money and handed
over the same to the present petitioner. All these factors are to
be considered during the course of trial. This Court cannot sit
23
and decide the case on merits while exercising the powers under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Now the Investigating Officer investigated
the matter and collected the material including the digital
evidence with regard to drawing of money by Somashekhar and
also when he made the statement that he withdrew the money
and handed over the same to the present petitioner, the same is
a triable issue before the trial Court and he has to be examined
before the trial Court.
19. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that this Court earlier quashed the proceedings in
respect of accused No.1 is concerned, no doubt, at the time of
considering the same, there were several cases in respect of the
particular incident and there was second FIR also. Now in the
present case, there is no any 2nd FIR and already police filed 'B'
report in respect of Crime No.63/2020. The present case is in
respect of Crime No.17/2020 for the allegation of demand and
acceptance of bribe money. Here there is a statement of
demand and acceptance of money by the petitioner. The
material on record also discloses that there are materials against
24
the petitioner including the statement of Bank Manager that the
present petitioner called and gave money to a particular person
to whom asked by the present petitioner to make the payment,
so also the mobile phone of the petitioner was seized, which
discloses the conversation between the present petitioner as well
as Shaji George, so also the Bank Manager and Shaji George; so
also the statement of Bank Manager is available before the
Court. Apart from that, there is a statement of Mukesh, who
dealt with the matter with regard to demand also. The Court
has to consider the digital evidence i.e. seizure of pendrive with
regard to drawing of money and handing over the same to the
present petitioner, so also the cheques, whether the cheque
bears the signature of the petitioner or not, also to be
considered by trial.
20. No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ashu
Surendranath Tiwari. In view of the said judgment, since
departmental enquiry is conducted against the petitioner,
wherein he was exonerated and the same is distinguished by this
25
Court in the earlier occasion in the case of State of Karnataka
Lokayuktha Police vs. T. Manjunath and others 3 and the
same is upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment4. The
counsel appearing for the respondent/Lokayukta also brought to
the notice of this Court the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Karnataka Lokayukta Bagalkote District, Bagalkot
vs. Chandrashekar and Another5, wherein at paragrpahs-15
and 16, it has held as under:
"15. Having thus stated the law regulating the final
decision in a departmental enquiry, we cannot but notice
that in the present case, there is a final order produced as
passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The learned Counsel
for the respondent vehemently argued that a retired
District Judge was the Enquiry Officer, which according to
us gives the enquiry no higher sanctity than that would
be conferred on any enquiry report in any disciplinary
proceeding carried out by a person not trained in law. The
Enquiry Officer often is appointed as an independent
person who would have no connection with the
management to ensure against any allegation of bias. A
retired judicial officer being appointed as an enquiry
officer does not confer the enquiry report any higher
value or greater sanctity than that is normally available to
such reports. We cannot but observe that in this case the
Enquiry Officer fell into an error by requiring proof at a
3
2024 SCC OnLine 31785
4
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2597
5
2026 SCC OnLine SC 13
26
higher level than that necessary under preponderance of
probabilities and so did the Disciplinary Authority, in
concurring with the same.
16. ...................................We cannot but notice that
there would be no consequence in not responding to a
summons in departmental proceedings, while a like failure
in criminal proceedings would be more drastic. The
criminal court has ample powers to ensure the presence
of a witness in a criminal proceeding, which the Enquiry
Officer does not possess. In this context, the fact that the
prosecuting agency and the one carrying on the
departmental enquiry being two entities assumes
significance. Further, here the trap was laid by the ACB,
and the prosecution was conducted at the behest of the
Lokayukta, and we cannot presume or anticipate any
laxity on the prosecuting agency of not bringing the
Inspector to the box, before the criminal court. More
pertinently we cannot, on such anticipated laxity put an
end to the prosecution."
(Emphasis supplied)
21. Having considered the principles laid down in the
judgment referred supra at paragraphs-15 and 16 and also in
the case of Ashu Surendranath Tiwari (supra), no doubt,
the Departmental Enquiry is conducted wherein the petitioner
was exonerated, but even the very same witnesses have not
supported the case in the Departmental Enquiry and this
Court cannot presume that they are also going to not support
the case on hand. Having considered the gravity of the
offence and the accusation made against the petitioner and
27
both are two different entities, assumes significance of
departmental enquiry and the criminal prosecution. This
Court earlier had already made an observation that a case of
trap and handing over the money, cannot be decided in a
departmental enquiry, wherein there are preponderance of
probabilities and in the case on hand, proving of the charges
leveled beyond reasonable doubt. When all these materials
are placed before this Court with regard to role of the
petitioner including the phone conversations with regard to
demand and acceptance and handing over the money, the
same requires to be considered during the course of trial.
Hence, the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2026 SCC
Online SC 13 referred supra comes to the aid of
respondent/Lokayukta and the matter requires full-fledged
trial in view of charges leveled against the petitioner and
there are specific allegations against this petitioner that he
indulged in all these acts by referring the name of ACP. No
doubt, this Court has quashed the proceedings against
accused No.1 and the Investigating Officer considering the
28
material during investigation has now filed charge sheet and
the said charge sheet material requires to be tested in trial
including the digital evidence. Hence, I do not find any
ground to quash the proceedings as contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. Hence, this is not a fit case to
invoke the provision under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and in a
proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., all these disputed
facts cannot be decided. Hence, I answered the point as
"negative".
22. In view of the discussions made above,
I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The present criminal petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
SPONSORED
(H.P. SANDESH)
JUDGE
JTR
CT:PA
