- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3250 CRL.P No. 103573 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103573 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SAYYED S/O. IMAMASAB CHIMMAD AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. ASSISTANT POLICE CONSTABLE, CAR, BELAGAVI (NOW UNDER SUSPENSION), R/O. KULAHALLI-587311, TQ. RABAKAVI BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALAKOTE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A.NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, THROUGH PSI, BAGALAKOTE TOWN POLICE STATION, BAGALAKOTE-587101, TQ/DIST. BAGALAKOTE. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO, QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.09.2024 PASSED IN CC NO.2389/2021 BY THE FILE OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND CJM, BAGALKOTE ON APPLICATION FILED U/S 239 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 201 OF IPC PENDING, AS PER ANNEXURE-A AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/A2 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 239 OF CR.P.C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.20 16:40:25 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3250 CRL.P No. 103573 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, who is facing charges for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), is before this Court. 3. The prosecution’s case is that, in the selection process for the post of police constable, accused No. 1 had applied for the post and, on his behalf, accused No. 3 participated in the written examination by impersonating him. The specific allegation against accused No. 2 is that he introduced accused No. 1 to accused No.3. 4. The petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the confession of accused No. 1, who, in his voluntary statement, claimed that he was introduced to accused No.3 by accused No. 2. However, this voluntary statement contains no corroborative material to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner. Moreover, there is no evidence to support the claim that accused No. 2 conspired with the other accused to assist accused No. 1 in the written examination. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent/State. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3250 CRL.P No. 103573 of 2024 6. The Apex Court in the case of Surinder Kumar Khanna -vs- Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence - (2018) 8 SCC 271 has ruled as follows: "It would be noticed that as a result of the provisions contained in Section 30, the confession has no general way, because whatever is considered by the court is evidence; circumstances which are considered by the court as well as probabilities do amount to evidence in that generic sense. Thus, though confession may be regarded as evidence in that generic sense because of the provisions of Section 30, the fact remains that it is not evidence as defined by Section 3 of the Act. The result, therefore, is that in dealing with a case against an accused person, the court cannot start with the confession of a co- accused person; it must being with other evidence adduced by the prosecution and after it has formed its opinion with regard to the quality and effect of the said evidence, then it is permissible to turn to the confession in order to receive assurance to the conclusion of guilt whichthe judicial mind is about to reach on the said other evidence. That, briefly stated, is the effect of the provisions contained in Section 30. The same view has been expressed by this Court in kashmira Singh v. State of M.P.[Kashimira Singh v. State of M.P., 1952 SCR 526 : AIR 1952 SC 159 : 1952 Cri LJ 839] where the decision of the Privy Council in Bhuboni Sahu case (Bhuboni Sahu V. R., 1949 SCC OnLine PC 12: (1948-49) 76 IA 147 at p. 155.] has been cited with approval." 7. It is settled law that any confession statement made by an accused while in police custody is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in the absence of corroborative material to substantiate the allegation against the accused. Furthermore, an accused cannot be subjected to trial solely based on such a confession statement. The allegation against accused, even if taken at face value, does not satisfy the essential elements required to constitute the offence alleged against him. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3250 CRL.P No. 103573 of 2024 8. Therefore, in the absence of any corroborative material to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner, the continuation of criminal proceedings based solely on the voluntary statement of accused No.1, which is inadmissible in law, would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 9. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition stands allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.2389/2021 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) and CJM, Bagalakote, insofar as it relates to the petitioner – accused No.2 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55