Criminal Petition No. 1581 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1796 CRL.P No. 1581 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1581 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1 . D R BIJAPURA S/O RAMACHANDRA BIJAPURA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED GOVERNMENT SERVANT, R/O KUVEMPUNAGAR, 3RD TURN, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101 (BY SRI.SHIVSHANKER, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ACB POLICE STATION, (NOW AT LOKAYUKTA) STATION CHIKKAMAGALURU, REP BY SPECIAL PUBLIC POSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001. 2 . SRI.S.D. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O DEVACHARI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, RESIDENT Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONER - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1796 CRL.P No. 1581 of 2024 MACHAGONDNHALLI VILLAGE, POST OFFICE: GULLAN PETE, HOBALI: ALLADUR TALUK AND DISTRICT CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101 …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. LETHIF.B.., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; R-2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPECIAL CRIME No.44/2023 VIDE F.I.R. No.04/2020, WHICH WAS LODGED BY THE ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU POLICE STATION, CHIKKAMGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7(b) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2018 ON 26.11.2020, INSTANTLY PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.01.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1796 CRL.P No. 1581 of 2024 1. This petition is filed seeking for quashing of the CAV ORDER proceedings in Special Crime No.44 of 2023 which has been registered pursuant to Crime No.4 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended by Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (for short, ‘the Act’), which is pending before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru. 2. A complaint was filed on 26.11.2020 contending that a demand was made for payment of an illegal gratification on 24.11.2020 and in compliance of the said demand, money was paid on 26.11.2020 to the petitioner during which time, he was apprehended while accepting the illegal gratification. 3. Pursuant to the above complaint, a crime was registered and after investigation, a charge-sheet - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1796 CRL.P No. 1581 of 2024 has also been laid against the petitioner on 29.03.2023. 4. It is not in dispute that, an enquiry in respect of the very same allegation of demanding and accepting illegal gratification was also conducted against the petitioner on the department side i.e., a disciplinary proceeding was initiated by the disciplinary authority and the enquiry was entrusted to a retired District Judge and the District Judge after considering the evidence that was adduced before him has concluded that the third bill in respect of the complainant’s claim had been paid on 26.09.2020 i.e., two months prior to the filing of the complaint and there was no possibility of the petitioner being involved in the crime. The enquiry officer found that since the third bill was already paid to the complainant, the question of there being any demand by the petitioner was untenable. The enquiry officer also found that in the complaint that - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1796 CRL.P No. 1581 of 2024 had been lodged on 26.11.2020, the petitioner was not specifically named and a specific allegation against him was also not made. 5. This enquiry report dated 10.09.2024 exonerating the petitioner has been accepted by the disciplinary authority on 05.12.2024 and the proceedings have concluded in favour of the petitioner. In other words, even in the disciplinary proceedings, in which the degree of proof required to establish guilt is much lower and a finding of guilt is based on the principle of preponderance of probability as against the principle of proof beyond all reasonable doubt required in a criminal prosecution, it has been found that the charges of demanding illegal gratification cannot be accepted since the third bill of the complainant had already been paid two months prior to the lodging of the complaint. In light of the exoneration of the petitioner on the department - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1796 CRL.P No. 1581 of 2024 side, the petitioner is seeking for quashing of these proceedings. 6. The Lokayukta however contends that mere exoneration of the complainant in the disciplinary proceedings would not justify the quashing of the proceedings, since exoneration of the petitioner is not after all the witnesses who had been cited in the charge-sheet had been examined and was without reference to the voice sample report which was against the petitioner. 7. Reliance is sought to be placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Sanju Rajan Nayar1 to contend that mere exoneration of the charges leveled against the accused in a departmental proceeding would not entitle an accused to seek for quashing of the proceedings. 1 Sanju Rajan Nayar vs. Jayaraj and another, (2024) SCC Online 582. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1796 CRL.P No. 1581 of 2024 8. In Radheshyam Kejriwal2 case, after considering various judgments, the Apex Court has laid down the ratio in the following terms: “38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows :- (i) Adjudication proceeding and criminal launched can be prosecution simultaneously; (ii) Decision in adjudication proceeding is initiating before necessary not criminal prosecution; (iii) Adjudication proceeding and criminal proceeding are independent in nature to each other; (iv) The finding against the person facing the adjudication prosecution proceeding is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution; in the (v) Adjudication proceeding by Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20 (2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (vi) The finding in the adjudication proceeding in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If in adjudication the exoneration proceeding is on technical ground 2 Radheshyam Kejriwal case vs. State of West Bengal, (2011) 3 SCC 581 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1796 CRL.P No. 1581 of 2024 and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and (vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances can not be allowed to continue underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to whether allegation in the adjudication proceeding as well as proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceeding is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceeding, the trial of the person concerned shall be in abuse of the process of the court.” 9. As could be seen from the above, the Apex Court has held that only if the exoneration of the delinquent official in an adjudication proceeding is on a technical ground and not on merits, the criminal prosecution could continue. The Supreme Court has also clearly held that in case exoneration - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1796 CRL.P No. 1581 of 2024 is on merits and the allegations found to be unsustainable and if the person is held to be innocent, the criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances of the case cannot continue to be allowed. 10. In the instant case, a clear finding has been rendered on merits by the enquiry officer that the charges against the petitioner could not be sustained at all, since two months prior to the criminal complaint, the third bill in favour of the complainant had already been paid. It has been held, in light of the third bill having been paid two months prior to the complaint, the question of the petitioner again making a claim would be completely untenable. 11. The enquiry officer has also recorded a finding that in the complaint itself, the petitioner was not named. It is therefore clear that the exoneration of - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:1796 CRL.P No. 1581 of 2024 the petitioner in the departmental proceedings is on merits and not on technical grounds. 12. In light of the ratio laid down in Radheshyam case, it is obvious that the prosecution cannot be continued against the petitioner. 13. The reliance placed on the judgment in Sanju Rajan Nayar’s case cannot be accepted even though in that case also, the petitioner therein had been exonerated in the departmental proceedings. 14. This is because, the Supreme Court in paragraph 7 of the judgment has taken note of the attendant circumstances of that particular case and it is stated that two persons were named as an accused, but the petition for quashing was preferred by only one accused, but the first information report was categorical that accused No.2—ASI had received money and the Police Inspector had assured him that they would provide a charge-sheet in lieu of money. Since the Supreme Court found that in - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:1796 CRL.P No. 1581 of 2024 those circumstances, when there were two accused, quashing of the proceedings would be improper and prosecution will have to continue. 15. The Supreme Court has rendered the judgment in the facts and circumstances of that case and has not laid down a proposition of law that even if the delinquent is exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings, yet the criminal prosecution to continue. 16. It is also to be stated here that, Radheshyam‘s case has also been followed in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari’s3 case wherein, the Supreme Court has categorically held and re- iterated that if the delinquent official was exonerated on the departmental side, in respect of the same charges, prosecution cannot be permitted to continue. 3 Ashoo Surendranath Tewari vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and another, (2020) 9 SCC 636. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:1796 CRL.P No. 1581 of 2024 17. It is therefore clear in the instant case that since the proceedings against the petitioner on the departmental side had ended in exoneration on merits of the claim, the prosecution cannot be permitted to continue. 18. Consequently, the criminal petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings as against the petitioner are quashed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 80