(BY SRI. AVINASH M. ANGADI., ADVOCATE) v. (BY SRI. LAKSHMAN B, HCGP FOR R1)

(BY SRI. AVINASH M. ANGADI., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH UDUPI TOWN POLICE STATION BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HC BENGALURU - 560 001.

ANIL KUMAR G. S AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC POLICE OFFICER R/O POLICE INSPECTOR, AHT UNIT, CID BENGALURU, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA-560 001. (BY SRI. LAKSHMAN B, HCGP FOR R1) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTAILER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1604/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF BEFORE THE - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12365 CRL.P No. 3969 of 2025 HONBLE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C UDUPI ARISING OUT OF COMPLAINT, FIR IN CR.NO.108/2021 AND CHARGE SHEET NO.4/2023 WHICH IS REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT P/U/S POLICE 120(B),201,406,417,419,420,468,471,34 OF IPC AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THEREIN IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN. OFFENCE ALLEGED FOR THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondent No.1.

2. The petitioner, who has been charge sheeted for the offences for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 201, 406, 417, 419, 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC, is before this Court seeking relief.

The case of the prosecution is that during the selection process for the post of police constable, accused No.2 had applied for the said post. Allegedly, accused No.1 participated in the written examination by impersonating accused No.2. The specific allegation against accused No.3 is that he introduced accused Nos. 1 to accused No.2. The petitioner/accused No.3 has been implicated solely on the basis of the voluntary confession statements of accused Nos.1 and 2, wherein they claimed that accused No.3 had introduced them. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12365 CRL.P No. 3969 of 2025

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Surinder Kumar Khanna vs. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence1, has held as follows:

It would be noticed that, as a result of the provisions contained in Section 30, the confession has no general evidentiary value, because whatever is considered by the court as evidence, including circumstances and probabilities, must meet the definition of evidence under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. While a confession may be considered as evidence in a broad sense due to Section 30, it is not evidence as defined under Section 3 of the Act. As such, in dealing with a case against an accused person, the court cannot rely solely on the confession of a co-accused. Instead, it must begin with other evidence adduced by the prosecution and, after forming its opinion on the quality and effect of such evidence, may refer to the confession for assurance in reaching a conclusion of guilt. That is the effect of Section 30. This view has also been expressed by this Court in Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P. [1952 SCR 526: AIR 1952 SC 159: 1952 Cri LJ 839], wherein the Privy Council decision in Bhuboni Sahu v. R. [1949 SCC OnLine PC 12: (1948-49) 76 IA 147] was cited with approval.

It is a well-settled principle that any confession made by an accused while in police custody is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, unless corroborated by material evidence substantiating allegations against the accused. Furthermore, an accused cannot be subjected to trial solely based on a confession statement. 1 (2018) 8 SCC 271 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12365 CRL.P No. 3969 of 2025

In the present case, the allegation against accused No.3, even if taken at face value, does not fulfill the essential elements required to constitute the offences alleged against him. The prosecution has failed to produce any corroborative material to substantiate the claims made in the voluntary statements of accused Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners based solely on the inadmissible confession statement of accused Nos. 1 and 2 would amount to an abuse of the process of law.