- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:308 WP No. 9130 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 9130 OF 2020 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. DR. H.S. SATHISH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BANGALORE CITY, KARNATAKA - 560 002. 2. DR. DAYANANDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY, MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BANGALORE CITY, KARNATAKA - 560 002 3. SMT. SOWMYA N GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE, BANGALORE CITY, KARNATAKA PIN CODE - 560 002 4. DR. JAYANTHI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, DEAN CUM DIRECTOR, BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE, BANGALORE CITY, KARNATAKA PIN CODE - 560 002 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRAKASH K.M., ADVOCATE (AB)) Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:308 WP No. 9130 of 2020 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY V.V. PURAM POLICE STATION, BANGALORE - 560 004. REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001 2. SRI. K.P. RAJAN, S/O A. KULANDAI VELU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 4070/B, 3RD MAIN, 10TH CROSS, B BLOCK, GAYATHRINAGAR BANGALORE CITY - 560 021 3. SRI. RAHUL CHAKRAVATHI, S/O K P RAJAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 4070/B, 3RD MAIN, 10TH CROSS, B-BLOCK, GAYATHRINAGAR BANGALORE CITY - 560 021 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. K.P. RAJAN, R2 - PARTY - IN PERSON R3 - SD) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR FILED BY THE R-1 POLICE, AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.22/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-B DATED 03.03.2020 AND ETC., THIS WP, COMING ON FOR HEARING - INTERLOCUTORY APPLN, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:308 WP No. 9130 of 2020 ORAL ORDER Petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 4 in Cr.No.22/2020 of Vishweshwarapuram Police Station for the offence under Sections 4(1), 18, 18(A) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and under Sections 109, 120B, 164, 167, 199 R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 as complainant filed the first information with Vishweshwarapuram Police Station alleging commission of the offence against accused Nos.1 to 4. It is the specific contention of the informant that he is the father of respondent No.2 and belongs to scheduled caste. Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute constitute five different hospitals i.e, Victoria Hospital, Minto Eye Hospital, Vani Vilas Hospital, Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospitals, BMC and RI Super Specialty Hospital. There was vacancy for junior lab technician and respondent No.3 had applied for the said job. Accused No.1 being the Medical Superintendent of Victoria Hospital, accused No.2 being - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:308 WP No. 9130 of 2020 the Head of the Department of Pathology and Medical Superintendent Victoria Hospital, accused No.3 being the Chief Administrative officer of Bengaluru Medical college and accused No.4 being the Dean/Director of Bangalore Medical college, who are at the helm of affairs to recruit suitable candidates for the vacant post of Junior lab technician, has not considered the application submitted by respondent No.3, as he had not acceded their demands for payment of illegal gratification. It is the specific contention of respondent No.2 that accused have demanded illegal gratification, which was not met by him. The accused have kept the vacant post of Junior Lab technician for sale and thereby committed the offences. Accordingly, respondent No.2 requested the police to register the case and to initiate legal action. Accordingly, the FIR came to be registered and investigation was undertaken. In the meantime, the petitioners approached this Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is absent no representation. He has not addressed his arguments inspite of giving sufficient opportunities. Hence, his arguments is taken as nil. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:308 WP No. 9130 of 2020 4. Heard Sri. Venkat Sathyanarayan, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, who appeared in person. Perused the materials on record. 5. In view of the contentions urged by the learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and respondent No.2-party in person, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the Petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" My answer to the above point is in ‘negative’ for the following: R E A S O N S 6. It is the specific contention of respondent No.2 that the applications were called for by eligible candidates to fill up the vacant posts of junior lab technicians, in Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute, which consists of five different hospitals. They demanded illegal gratification from respondent No.3 being the applicant and respondent No.2 being his father. Since their illegal demand for gratification was not met, the application of respondent No.3 was not considered by them. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:308 WP No. 9130 of 2020 7. Admittedly, no investigation worth mentioning was undertaken by the investigating officer. Till date, no final report is filed. Petitioners have approached this Court contending that false allegations are made against them. When the specific and serious allegations are made against the petitioners, a detailed investigation is required to be held to find out the truth or otherwise. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the contention taken by the petitioners and it is not a fit case for quashing the criminal proceedings without undertaking any investigation. 8. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER Petition is dismissed. In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending IA stands disposed of. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH: List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24