- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38632 WP No. 19760 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 19760 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. MANJU K R S/O LATE T. K. RACHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, PREVIOUSLY SERVING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, RESIDING AT, NO.1675/A2/B2, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, KIRUVADI LAY OUT, DAVANAGERE - 500 034. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINAYAK VAMANRAO KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE, DAVANAGERE, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, LOKAYUKTA, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. T. V. SRINIVAS S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEAR DURGAMMA TEMPLE, DAVANAGERE, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT C/O LINGARAJ, 3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS, B BLOCK, SS LAY OUT, DAVANAGERE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1) Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38632 WP No. 19760 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO A. CALL FOR THE RECORDS, B. QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN LOK. CR. NO. 6/2023 REGISTERED BY THE LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE DATED 16.02.2023 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7 OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition has been filed challenging the order of cognizance recorded by the Court below in Special Case No.210/2024 (Lok. Crime No.6/2023), pertaining to the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner contends that the order of cognizance is legally and procedurally flawed and therefore requires judicial intervention. 2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/Agency has fairly conceded that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter remitted to the Court below. It is submitted that the Court below may be - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38632 WP No. 19760 of 2025 directed to re-examine the materials on record afresh and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 3. To the submission made on behalf of respondent No.1, learned counsel for the petitioner has also fairly conceded. However, the petitioner seeks that liberty be reserved to approach this Court again in the event a fresh order is passed by the Court below, should any grievance arise regarding the subsequent proceedings. 4. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel and perused the order of the Court below, this Court notes that cognizance in respect of the offence punishable under Section 7(a) has been taken by the CEO, and thereafter, the matter was made over to the Court. It is well settled that the taking of cognizance by a competent Court is a matter of serious judicial responsibility. The Court of first instance, whether a Magistrate or a District Judge, is required to apply its mind independently, examine the materials on record, and take - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38632 WP No. 19760 of 2025 cognizance only if satisfied that there exists sufficient material to proceed against the accused. The order of cognizance is thus a substantive judicial act and cannot be treated as a mere formality. 5. On examining the order sheet, it is evident that the cognizance is apparently recorded as having been taken by the CAO, and not directly by the Court. This procedural irregularity indicates that the Court of first instance may not have independently applied its mind to the materials before it, and the order of cognizance is, therefore, not sustainable in law. In view of this serious procedural defect, the impugned order cannot be allowed to stand. 6. In the light of the foregoing, this Court is of the view that the appropriate course is to set aside the order of cognizance recorded by the Court below and remit the matter for fresh consideration, ensuring that the Court of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38632 WP No. 19760 of 2025 first instance examines the materials independently and passes a reasoned order in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. ii) The impugned order of cognizance passed in Special Case No.210/2024 (Lok. Crime No.6/2023) is hereby quashed. iii) The matter is remitted to the Court below to re-examine the materials on record afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. iv) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach this Court in the event of any grievance arising out of the fresh proceedings. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0