- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12067 CRL.P No. 102470 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102470 OF 2024 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: BASAPPA T.L. S/O. TEJAPPA, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. PSI, NOW WORKING AT: HANAMSAGAR POLICE STATION, TQ. KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL-571 607. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHANKAR HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION, BALLARI, R/BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580 011. 2. M. NARAYANSWAMY S/O. M. BUGGAYYA, AGE. 46 YEARS, R/O. S.N. PETE, NEAR MALLIKARJUN TEMPLE, KAMPLI, DIST. BALLARI-583 132. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH MALAGOUDAR, SPL. P.P. R2-SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS FROM SPL.C.5001/2024 PENDING BEFORE THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI, SITTING AT HOSPET AND QUASH FIR BEARING ACB BALLARY P.S. CRIME NO.02/2022 DATED 07.03.2022 REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7(A) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION AMENDMENT ACT 2018 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A), CHARGE SHEET NO.06/2023 DATED 22.12.2023 FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7(A) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2018, VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND THE CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.5001/2024 PENDING BEFORE THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI, SITTING AT HOSPET, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12067 CRL.P No. 102470 of 2024 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) Petitioner is before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in Special Case No.5001 of 2024 pending before the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hosapete, arising out of Crime No.2 of 2022 registered for offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Amendment Act, 2018. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner has been charge sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the learned Trial Court has taken cognizance of the charge sheeted offence and has issued summons to the petitioner in Special Case No.5001 of 2024. Challenging the proceedings in the said case, petitioner is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental enquiry that was held against him, by order dated 13.03.2024, which is available at Annexure – G to this petition. The said order has attained - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12067 CRL.P No. 102470 of 2024 finality. Petitioner is being prosecuted for the charge sheeted offences on the same set of facts and on similar allegations as found in the departmental enquiry that was held against the petitioner. He submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and another1, the impugned proceeding is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the petition. He submits that all the material charges sheet witnesses were not examined in the department enquiry proceedings. The de facto complainant CW1 has supported the case of the prosecution in the departmental proceedings. CW4 to 9 in the present case are material charge sheet witnesses who have not examined in the departmental proceedings. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanju Rajan Nayar vs. Jayaraj and another2, has held that criminal proceedings against the 1 (2020) 9 SCC 636 2 2024 SCC online SC 582 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12067 CRL.P No. 102470 of 2024 accused cannot be quashed. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 5. The respondent No.2 is the de facto complainant in the present case. He is said to be carrying on paddy business. Petitioner had visited his business premises in the year 2021 and demanded payment of “mamool” during Deepavali festival in the said year. However, respondent No.2 had refused to pay “mamool” to the petitioner. Thereafter, on 26.02.2022 respondent No.2 had approached Kampli Police Station in which the petitioner was working as a Sub Inspector of Police, for the purpose of filing a complaint against the proprietor of Chandradar Rice Mill, who was due to pay respondent No.2 a sum of ₹24,91,810/-. 6. Petitioner, who was outside the Police Station stopped the motorbike of respondent No.2 which he was riding and asked for the documents of the said vehicle which stood in the name of the nephew of respondent No.2. Since respondent No.2 did not produce relevant documents, his motorbike was seized and a demand was made for payment of bribe to release the vehicle. Respondent No.2 allegedly spoke to his relative - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12067 CRL.P No. 102470 of 2024 Prasad – CW6, who thereafter, spoke to the petitioner and negotiated for reducing the bribe amount. The conversation between Prasad and the petitioner was allegedly recorded in a mobile phone and since the respondent No.2 did not intend to pay the bribe demanded by the petitioner, he had approached the ACB Police and submitted a complaint on 07.03.2022 based on which FIR was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.2 of 2022. Subsequently, in a trap that was held on 08.03.2022, the petitioner was caught red handed while receiving the bribe amount from respondent No.2. Petitioner was subsequently arrested and remanded to judicial custody and after completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. Assailing the proceedings now pending before the Trial Court, in Special Case No.5001 of 2024, which arises from Crime No.2 of 2022, the petitioner is before this Court. 7. Perusal of the charge sheet filed in the present case would go to show that first informant M. Narayanaswami is cited as CW1 in the charge sheet witness. Prasad Rao, who allegedly had negotiated over phone number with the petitioner for - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12067 CRL.P No. 102470 of 2024 reducing the bribe amount, has been cited as CW6. CW7 and CW8 are persons who have identified the voice of Prasad Rao which was recorded and CW9 is the witness who has identified the voice of petitioner. CW4 and CW5 are the panchas to the seizure of the voice recorder in which the conversation of Prasad Rao – CW6 and the petitioner was recorded. 8. In the departmental proceeding, only CW1 to CW3 have been examined. CW4 to CW9 in the present case, who are the material charge sheet witnesses have not been examined in the departmental proceedings. In addition to CW1 to CW3 in the present case, the other witnesses examined in the departmental enquiry proceedings are all Police Officers. Therefore, it is apparent that the material charge sheet witnesses have not been examined in the departmental enquiry. Further, the material on record would also go to show that CW1, who is the de facto complainant in the present case, had deposed against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry. But the same has not been properly appreciated by the Enquiry Officer or by the discipline authority, who has exonerated the petitioner in the Departmental Enquiry. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12067 CRL.P No. 102470 of 2024 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanju Rajan Nayar (supra) in paragraph 9 has observed as follows: 9. We may also observe that it was the pleaded case of the Lokayukta before the High Court that the continuance of the trial was not on the very same evidence as what weighed with the authorities in exonerating the employee in the departmental proceedings. This fact, also appears not to have been considered by the High Court in its correct perspective. 10. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra) can be made applicable in a case where during the course of departmental enquiry proceedings, all the material charge sheet witnesses are examined and thereafter, the delinquent employee, who is the accused in the criminal case is exonerated and not in a case where during the course of departmental enquiry, the material charge sheet witnesses are not examined. Therefore, the judgment in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra) cannot be made applicable. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12067 CRL.P No. 102470 of 2024 11. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE RSH / CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 65