- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9491 CRL.P No. 1665 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1665 OF 2026 BETWEEN: DR. RAMACHANDRA K.C AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O K.B. CHANDRASHEKAR WORKING AS GYNECOLOGIST GENERAL HOSPITAL, YELAHANKA BENGALURU, RESIDING AT PLOT NO.10 FLAT NO.1, MANOJAVANCHAW APARTMENTS 4TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 094. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PARASANALLI ANIL SIDRAMAPPA, ADV. V/O DTD:06.02.2026) AND: 1. STATE BY KARANTAKA LOKAYUKTA, BENGALURU CITY DIVISION, M. S. BUILDINGS DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. 2. SRI MOUNESH S/O SRI JANAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS NO.218, J.K. BASAVANNA NAGAR MEDI AGRAHARA, HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURA POST BENGALURU - 560 097. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI LETHIF B, ADV., FOR R-1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN SPECIAL CASE NO.2432/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9491 CRL.P No. 1665 of 2026 HONBLE XXIII ADDL. CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SPL. JUDGE U/S 7(a), 7(A) OF P.C.ACT (AMENDED ACT 2018) BENGALURU AND DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Accused No.1 is before this Court in this Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in Special Case No.2432/2025 pending before the Court of XXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.31/2023 registered by Karnataka Lokayuktha Police, Bengaluru Division, for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a) and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that petitioner was not present at the spot either when the bribe amount was collected by accused No.2 or subsequently when CW16, police officer attached to Karnataka Lokayuktha Police had visited the Hospital pursuant to a complaint received from PW1-Mounesh. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9491 CRL.P No. 1665 of 2026 He submits that there is no material to connect the petitioner to the alleged crime and therefore, entire proceedings as against him needs to be quashed. The petitioner is serving as a Senior Doctor without there being any complaint against him till date. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that charge sheet material makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner for the alleged offences. The conversation between the petitioner and accused No.2 has been recorded. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 5. In the first information which was filed on 25.07.2023, it is alleged by the first informant/CW1, that on 14.07.2023, his friend's sister, who was pregnant was admitted in a Government Hospital at Yelahanka for the purpose of her delivery. On 15.07.2023, petitioner had demanded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as bribe for performing a cesarean operation for the purpose of delivery of the child and therefore, first informant along with his friend Mallikarjuna, had met the petitioner, who had reduced his demand to Rs.11,000/- after negotiation. Subsequently, CW1 had arranged a sum of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9491 CRL.P No. 1665 of 2026 Rs.10,000/- and handed over the same to accused No.2 - Wahid, who was working as a ward boy in the said Hospital. On receipt of a complaint from CW1, CW16/police officer attached to Karnataka Lokayuktha Police, Bengaluru, had visited the Hospital along with CW1 and Mallikarjuna/CW6 and found that Smt. Manjula, sister of Mallikarjuna had given birth to a girl child and her operation was performed by CW7/Dr. Guru Priya. Thereafter, CW16 had enquired accused No.2/Wahid, who had handed over a sum of Rs.10,000/- received by him from CW1, which was returned to CW1 by CW16. 6. The allegation against the petitioner in the charge sheet is that in furtherance of his demand for a sum of Rs.11,000/-, a sum of Rs.10,000/- on his instruction was paid to accused No.2. The conversation between CW1 and accused No.2 was recorded in the mobile phone of CW1. On 15.07.2023, when CW16 had gone to the Hospital along with CW1 and CW6/Mallikarjuna, he had enquired accused No.2/Wahid and during the course of said enquiry, accused No.2 was asked to speak to accused No.1, who is the petitioner herein over mobile phone and loudspeaker of the mobile phone was switched on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9491 CRL.P No. 1665 of 2026 and the conversation between accused No.2 and the petitioner herein was recorded in the mobile phone of CW1 and these conversations have been forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, which is a part of the charge sheet, would go to show that the disputed voice recorded in the mobile phone tallies with the admitted voice recording of accused. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab - (2020) 3 SCC 317, in paragraph No.8 has held as under:- "8. It is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge-sheet constitutes the ingredients of the offence/offences alleged. Interference by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is settled law that the evidence produced by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into by the court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at the initial stage of the criminal proceedings. It is trite law that the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9491 CRL.P No. 1665 of 2026 considering the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings. It is clear from the law laid down by this Court that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding." 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naresh Aneja v. State of U.P - (2025) 2 SCC 604, in paragraph No.18 has held as under:- "18. It is well settled that when considering an application under Section 482CrPC, the court cannot conduct a mini-trial but instead is to be satisfied that prima facie the offences as alleged are made out. To put it differently, it is to be seen, without undertaking a minute examination of the record, that there is some substance in the allegations made which could meet the threshold of statutory language." 9. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is prima facie material to prosecute the petitioner for the charge sheeted offences. The power under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, can be exercised only in the event, if it is found that charge sheet material do not make out a prima facie case against the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9491 CRL.P No. 1665 of 2026 petitioner to be prosecuted for the alleged offence. A mini trial with regard to the genuineness or correctness of the charge sheet material cannot be held by this Court at this stage. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petition lacks merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22