- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2359 CRL.P No. 200616 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200616 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SIDRAM DEVENDRA NAGATHAN S/O DEVENDRA NAGATHAN, AGE:45 YEARS, OCC: SUB-REGISTRAR, AT HUNAGUND, R/O. PLOT NO.28, BUDHIHAL LAYOUT, BESIDE KALIKA NAGAR BLDE ROAD, BIJAPUR, TQ. AND DIST.VIJAYAPURA, KARNATAKA -586101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI AVINASH M. ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION, VIJAYAPURA, BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2359 CRL.P No. 200616 of 2025 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI–585103. 2. SACHIN S. CHALUVADI, AGE:38 YEARS, OCC: POLICE INSPECTOR AT ACB PS VIJAYAPURA, TQ. AND DIST.VIJAYAPURA, KARNATAKA-586101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, SPL. PP FOR R1; V/O DTD. 08.04.2025, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC 528 OF BNSS,2023 PRAYING TO, ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING IN SPL C. CORRUPTION No.5/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE FILE BEFORE THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, VIJAYAPURA ARISING OUT OF COMPLAINT FIR IN CRIME NO.10/2018 AND CHARGE SHEET No.5/2023 VIJAYAPUR PS WHICH IS REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 7(A), 7(A) 12 PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THERE IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO. 1 HEREIN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2359 CRL.P No. 200616 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the entire proceedings in Spl.Case (Corruption) No.5/2023 pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Court, Vijayapura. The same has been registered in Crime No.10/2018 by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a), 7A and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amendment Act, 2018) for short (‘P.C Act’). Brief facts of the case: 2. The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.1 was working as Sub Registrar at Basavana Bagewadi. Accused No.2 was working as an employee of the office of the Sub Registrar and accused Nos.3 and 4 are the bond writers. The respondent police had received an information that the petitioner herein was demanding an additional amount at the time of registration of properties and also other relevant documents placed before them for registration. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2359 CRL.P No. 200616 of 2025 3. On receiving the said information, conducted inspection on three days and they found that the petitioner and others had collected extra amount of Rs.83,650/-. The allegations made against the petitioner is that, the petitioner had possessed Rs.770/- and he had not accounted for the said additional amount. Similarly, the amount of Rs.500/- was recovered from Second Division Assistant, who is arraigned as accused No.2. 4. It is further stated in the complaint that the accused Nos.1 and 2 being a public servants attached to the Sub Registrar Office, in connivance with accused Nos.3 and 4 had collected additional amount from the public. Therefore, a case came to be registered against them. The respondent police after conducting investigation, submitted the charge sheet. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Heard Sri.Avinash M.Angadi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Subhash M.Mallapur, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - Lokayukta. 6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been exonerated from the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2359 CRL.P No. 200616 of 2025 departmental enquiry on given set of facts and other circumstances. Such being the fact, continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, certainly, would be an abuse of process of law and also against the settled principles of law as stated in the case of ASHOO SURENDRANATH TEWARI v. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, EOW, CBI AND ANOTHER1. Therefore, the proceedings has to be quashed. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the appeal. 7. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – Lokayukta vehemently submitted that, merely because in the departmental enquiry, the petitioner had been exonerated, it may not be sufficient to hold that the petitioner had not committed any offences. In fact, the departmental enquiry and the criminal prosecution are different altogether. The manner in which the departmental enquiry would be held is entirely different and moreover, the evidence of the prosecution in this case had to be proved beyond 1 (2020) 9 SCC 636 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2359 CRL.P No. 200616 of 2025 reasonable doubt. Therefore, the proceedings in the departmental enquiry and its exoneration do not assist the petitioner and he is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. In fact, the prosecution has made out a case for the purpose of framing of charge. Therefore, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings. Making such submissions, the learned Special Public Prosecutor prays to dismiss the petition. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the charge sheet, it appears from the record that the petitioner was working as Sub Registrar at Basavana Bagewadi. It is alleged against him that he along with others were collecting excess amount from the public at the time when they were presenting the documents for registration. It is stated in the complaint that at the time of conducting the inspection, the Lokayukta Police had found that the amount of Rs.34,920/-. The amount of Rs.700/- was recovered particularly from the petitioner. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2359 CRL.P No. 200616 of 2025 9. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the petitioner had made available the proceedings of the departmental enquiry and its result. The persons who are cited as witnesses in the charge sheet were examined in the said proceedings and it was ended in exoneration. As the petitioner was exonerated from the departmental enquiry, on the same set of facts and circumstances continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, in my considered view, would be considered as abuse of process of law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari stated supra, held in paragraph Nos.12 and 13 as under: “12. After referring to various judgments, this Court then culled out the ratio of those decisions in para 38 as follows: (Radheshyam Kejriwal case4, SCC p. 598) “38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows: (i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously; (ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution; (iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other; - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2359 CRL.P No. 200616 of 2025 (iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution; (v) Adjudication proceedings by the 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 proceedings in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and (vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases.” 13. It finally concluded: (Radheshyam Kejriwal case4, SCC p. 598, para 39) “39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court.” - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2359 CRL.P No. 200616 of 2025 10. In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The entire proceedings in Spl.Case (Corruption) No.5/2023 pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Court, Vijayapura arising out of Crime No.10/2018 registered by the respondent police, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE RSP/UN, CT:PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37