- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37220 WP No. 21522 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 21522 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. ABHAY KUMAR B.PATIL S/O BHARMGOUDA PATIL AGED 55 YEARS OCC: MLA, AGRICULTURE & SOCIAL WORK RESIDING AT MALINI, HOUSE NO.24 HOUSUR BASVANA GALLI BELAGAVI - 590 003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KIRAN S.JAVALI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRA SHEKARA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE M.S.BUILDING, AMEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SMT. PUSHPALATHA N. THE SUPERINTENDENT KARNATAKA LOKAUKTHA POLICE STATION SADASHIV NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKATESH S.ARABATTI, SPL.P.P.) Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37220 WP No. 21522 of 2025 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RREAD WITH SECTION 528 OF THE BNSS, 2023, PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 20.05.2025 OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 (ANNEXURE A-1) AND THE REGISTRATION OF FIR IN CRIME NO.8/2025 DATED 21.05.2025 BY THE 81ST ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPECIAL COURT FOR MP, MLA) BANGALORE (CCH-82) (ANNEXURE A), AS BEING ILLEGAL AND VOID AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER The petitioner is presently a sitting MLA from Belagavi South constituency. A private complaint was filed before the trial Court against the petitioner herein by a third party in PCR No.18/2012 on the allegation that the petitioner has amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. The same was referred for investigation and the Lokayukta Police registered an FIR in Crime No.14/2012. The same was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.75545/2013. The said writ petition was allowed on the ground that cognizance taken - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37220 WP No. 21522 of 2025 by the trial Court was without application of mind and the matter was remitted back to the Special Judge for fresh consideration. Subsequently, once again the trail Court referred the same private complaint to the Lokayukta Police, Belagavi in 2017 and the then Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) filed FIR in Crime No.7/2017 for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'P.C. Act'). Once again, the petitioner approached the High Court by filing W.P.No.104165/2017. The said writ petition was also allowed and the FIR was quashed on the ground that proceedings vitiated the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava & Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in 2015 6 SCC 287. 2. Again proceedings have been referred to police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and in turn FIR No.12/2017 has been registered by the then ACB. The same was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.15139/2021. The said writ petition has been allowed on the ground that, firstly, there was no prior sanction obtained and an observation is also made that the private complaint made by a third party was not supported by a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37220 WP No. 21522 of 2025 proper affidavit as contemplated in Priyanka Srivastava's case (cited supra) and it was not supported by any material. The order passed by this Court in W.P.No.15139/2021 was challenged by way of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)No(s).944- 946/2024 by the private complainant. The Hon'ble Apex Court has passed the following order: "We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the High Court. Learned counsel for the State of Karnataka, Shri D.L.Chidananda, submits that it is correct that upon application/complaints filed by the petitioner, investigation/inquiry was made and it was found that respondent no.1 possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income not to the extent as alleged by the complainant that it was 346.73%, but it was less and about 128.54%, which fact has been stated in the final report dated 30.03.2024 filed by the State to the concerned jurisdictional Court. If that so, the State would be at liberty to proceed against respondent no.1 by registering an F.I.R. and proceed further in accordance to law. Shri Chidananda, learned counsel, further submits that the State will take appropriate steps in this regard. Any order passed by the High Court whereby the complaints filed by the petitioner was quashed or the order directing for registration of F.I.R. and investigation - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37220 WP No. 21522 of 2025 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was also quashed by the High Court, will not come in the way of the State for proceeding with in accordance to law against respondent no.1. Special Leave Petitions and pending applications are disposed of accordingly. All contentions are left open to the parties to be raised in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forums." 3. Pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Lokayukta Police have registered FIR No.8/2025, which is called in question over here. 4. The case of the petitioner is that this Court in W.P.No.15139/2021, unlike on earlier occasions did not remand the matter back to trial Court but has quashed both the private complaint filed by the complainant against the petitioner and also the FIR registered by the ACB based upon the said private complaint, which has the effect of dropping all further proceedings against the petitioner based on the private complaint filed against him. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically observed that it is not - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37220 WP No. 21522 of 2025 inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the High Court while disposing of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)No(s).944- 946/2024. It is submitted that during the proceedings before Apex Court, the counsel representing the State made an erroneous statement before the Apex Court to the effect that investigation has been concluded and it is found that the petitioner is having an asset of about 128.54% in excess to his known sources of income and a chargesheet to that effect has been filed before the trial Court, which prompted the Apex Court to give liberty to the State to proceed against respondent no.1 therein by registering an FIR. Even till today sanction has not been obtained. 5. It is submitted that the Apex Court gave the liberty to Lokayukta Police only because of the erroneous submission made by them that police report was filed before the trial Court. As the same has not been done, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the FIR registered against the petitioner be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Lokayukta Police submits that what was meant to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37220 WP No. 21522 of 2025 be submitted before the Apex Court was not that a police report was filed before the trial Court, but a draft chargesheet was in fact produced before this Court in the proceedings in W.P.No.15139/2021. Considering the said fact, the Apex Court has given liberty to the Lokayukta Police to proceed with the case, pursuant to which, FIR No.8/2025 has been registered against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner cannot be decided in the proceedings filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. but is a matter for trial. On the said grounds, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. However, learned counsel for respondents admits that even till today sanction as contemplated under Section 19 of the P.C. Act has not been received to prosecute the petitioner. 7. Admittedly, PCR No.18/2012 filed against the petitioner and Crime No.12/2017 registered against the petitioner by the respondents have been quashed in W.P.No.15139/2021. As can be seen from the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)No.944-946/2024, the order passed by this Court in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37220 WP No. 21522 of 2025 W.P.No.15139/2021 has been upheld. Because, the respondents submitted before the Apex Court that a chargesheet has already been filed before the jurisdictional trial Court, liberty was granted to Lokayukat Police to register fresh FIR and proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. However, now it turns out, based on the submissions of both the counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents that the chargesheet was never filed before the trial Court. What has been submitted according to the respondents is submission of a draft chargesheet before this Court during the proceedings in W.P.No.15139/2021. This Court in the said proceedings has examined all the materials placed before it including the fact of respondents filing a draft chargesheet before it and has allowed the writ petition quashing the PCR and the FIR filed against the petitioner herein. The said finding has been upheld by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).944- 946/2024. 8. As there has been no chargesheet filed against the petitioner before trial Court, which according to the order passed by the Apex Court is essential for prosecution to be - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37220 WP No. 21522 of 2025 continued against the petitioner, the question of permitting the proceedings to continue pursuant to FIR in Crime No.8/2025 on the file of LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court for MP, MLA) Bangalore (CCH-82), does not arise. 9. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. FIR in Crime No.8/2025 pending on the file of LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court for MP, MLA) Bangalore (CCH- 82), against the petitioner is hereby quashed; iii. In view of disposal of the writ petition, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2025 do not survive for consideration and the same are hereby dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18