- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10335 CRL.P No. 1354 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1354 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. HANUMESH S/O. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT KYATANAHATTI, NEAR BUS STAND, SINDHANUR, MASKI, KYATHANAHATTI, RAICHUR - 584 128. INDICATE IN CHARGE SHEET AS: SRI. HANUMESH, S/O. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT KYATHNAHATTI, UDHBALA U POST, SINDHANUR TALUK, RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 128. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SHRIDEVI BHOSALE M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CYBER CRIME POLICE, BENGALURU - 560 053. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR/HCGP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI. MIRZA ALI RAZA, POLICE INSPECTOR, Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10335 CRL.P No. 1354 of 2025 SPECIAL ENQUIRY, CCB SQUAD, BENGALURU - 560 053. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYA, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO i) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2019 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL CMM, BENGALURU, NOW I ACJM, BENGALURU IN CC.NO.29952/2019 (ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.291/2019 OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE), THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUING SUMMONS AGAINST THIS PETITIONER WHO IS ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.15 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 120(B), 379, 420, 511 R/W 34 OF IPC, AS AGAINST THIS PETITIONER WHO IS ACCUSED NO.15, VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER Learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent - State. 2. The petitioner/accused No.15 sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 120 (B), 379, 420, 511 read with Section 34 of IPC is before this Court seeking relief. 3. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner/accused along with other accused assembled in - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10335 CRL.P No. 1354 of 2025 the property belonging CW-4 to leak the PSI examination question papers by taking money. 4. Heard, learned counsel for petitioner and the learned HCGP for respondent - State. 5. The issue involved in the petition was already considered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri. Vittal Yallappa Byakod -vs- The State Of Karnataka in Crl.P.No.23843/2019: DD 23.06.2022. 6. It is undisputed that before the question papers were secured illegally, accused Nos.1 to 8 were apprehended by the Police and thereafter mahazar was drawn wherein the photocopy of the Aadhar card of the petitioner-accused No.15 was recovered from the property belonging to the C.W.4. Except the said material, there is no statement of any of the witnesses or the co-accused alleging that the petitioner-accused No.15 had conspired with the other accused persons. 7. The Apex Court in the case of Parveen Alias Sonu -vs- State of Haryana, AIR Online 2021 SC 1131 at paragraph No.12 has held as follows: "12. It is fairly well settled, to prove the charge of conspiracy, within the ambit of Section 120-B, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10335 CRL.P No. 1354 of 2025 unlawful act. At the same time, it is to be noted that it is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence at all, but at the same time, in absence of any evidence to show meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act, it is not safe to hold a person guilty for offences under Section 120-B of IPC. A few bits here and a few bits there on which prosecution relies, cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of crime of criminal conspiracy. Even the alleged confessional statements of the co-accused, in absence of other acceptable corroborative evidence, is not safe to convict the accused. In the case of Indra Dalal v. State Of Haryana1, this Court has considered the conviction based only on confessional statement and recovery of vehicle used in the crime. In the said case, while setting aside the conviction, this Court has held in paragraphs 16 & 17 as under: “16. The philosophy behind the aforesaid provision is acceptance of a harsh reality that confessions are extorted by the police officers by practising oppression and torture or even inducement and, therefore, they are unworthy of any credence. The provision absolutely excludes from evidence against the accused a confession made by him to a police officer. This provision applies even to those confessions which are made to a police officer who may not otherwise be acting as such. If he is a police officer and confession was made in his presence, in whatever capacity, the same becomes inadmissible in evidence. This is the substantive rule of law enshrined under this provision and this strict rule has been reiterated countlessly by this Court as well as the High Courts. 17. The word “confession” has nowhere been defined. However, the courts have resorted to the dictionary meaning and explained that incriminating statements by the accused to the police suggesting - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10335 CRL.P No. 1354 of 2025 the inference of the commission of the crime would amount to confession and, therefore, inadmissible under this provision. It is also defined to mean a direct acknowledgment of guilt and not the admission of any incriminating fact, however grave or conclusive. Section 26 of the Evidence Act makes all those confessions inadmissible when they are made by any person, whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless such a confession is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. Therefore, when a person is in police custody, the confession made by him even to a third person, that is, other than a police officer, shall also become inadmissible." 8. In the present case, there is no material placed along with the charge sheet to substantiate that the petitioner-accused No.15 conspired with the other accused persons for committing the illegal act or attempted to do an illegal act so as to constitute the commission of the offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC. 9. Mere recovery of the alleged photocopy of the Aadhar card belonging to the petitioner-accused No.15 cannot imply that the petitioner-accused No.15 conspired with the other accused persons to do an unlawful act. His presence in the property belonging to CW-4 is also not spoken either by the complainant witnesses or any co- accused. In the absence of essential ingredients so as to constitute the commission of the offence punishable under - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10335 CRL.P No. 1354 of 2025 Section 120B of IPC, the filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner-accused No.15 for the said offence is without any substance. 10. The Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka -vs- L. Muniswamy and others, AIR 1977 SC 1489 has observed at para 7 as follows: “7… In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction." 11. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and in the absence of any material that the petitioner-accused No.15 conspired with the other accused persons in attempting to obtain the question paper illegally, the charge sheet filed against the petitioner-accused No.15 requires to be quashed so as to secure the ends of justice. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10335 CRL.P No. 1354 of 2025 Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The *petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.29952/2019 pending on the file of the Hon'ble I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, in so far it relates to petitioner-accused No.15 is hereby quashed. Pending I.A's does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 CT: BHK * deleted vide chamber order dated 27.03.2025