Karnataka High Court
Kaveriyappa N T vs The State Of Karnataka By on 6 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:13872
CRL.P No. 1716 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1716 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
KAVERIYAPPA N.T
AGED ABOUT 38 YRS (AS PER C.S)
CURRENTLY AGED 53 YRS
S/O, LATE N.K THIMMAIAH
R/AT, NO.100, ANDHAGAVI POST
SUNTIKOPPA HOBLI, SOMWARPET
TALUK, KODAGU - 571 236
PRESENTLY, R/AT, NO.187
1ST STAGE, 4TH MAIN
BEML LAYOUT, BASVESHWARANAGAR
BENGALURU - 570 079.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.R. CHINNASWAMY MANOHAR, ADV.)
AND:
Digitally signed by
NAGARAJA B M
Location: HIGH 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
COURT OF
KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA P.S
INVESTIGATION BY C.I.D
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS C.O.D)
POLICE, REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. P.K. BABU RAO,
UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
(SERVICE RULES), GOVERNMENT OF
KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:13872
CRL.P No. 1716 of 2026
HC-KAR
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.R. PATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS)
PRAYING PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN SPL.C.C.NO.25/2011 (CRIME
NO.28/2004) (C.C.NO.5540/2008) REGISTERED BY
VIDHANASOUDHA P.S (INVESTIGATION BY CID), PENDING
BEFORE THE HONBLE LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-78) FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 120(B), 109, 119, 116, 409,
418 AND 420 OF IPC AND SECTION 13(1)(d) R/W 13(2) OF
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner, who is accused No.12, is seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Spl.C.C.No.25/2011 (Crime No.28/2004) (C.C.No.5540/2008) registered by Vidhanasoudha Police Station pending on the file of the LXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, at Bengaluru (CCH-78) for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 109, 119, 166, 409, 418 and 420 of IPC and -3- NC: 2026:KHC:13872 CRL.P No. 1716 of 2026 HC-KAR Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. The gist of the prosecution case is as under:
A crime was registered regarding irregularities in the award of marks in the examination conducted by the Karnataka Public Service Commission in 1998 for selection of Gazetted Officers to Group 'A' and 'B' posts. Pursuant to the registration of the crime, the Investigating Officer laid a charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 109, 119, 166, 409, 418 and 420 of the IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution alleges that the Chief Examiner, in collusion with the Examiner his cousin indulged in malpractice by awarding higher marks to a select group of candidates. It is further alleged that the petitioner, then serving as an Assistant Treasury Officer in the Treasury Department and an aspirant in the said examination, was a beneficiary and had also connived with -4- NC: 2026:KHC:13872 CRL.P No. 1716 of 2026 HC-KAR the Chief Examiner and the Examiner to secure higher marks. On these allegations, the charge sheet was filed and proceedings are pending against the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contends that the filing of the charge sheet during the petitioner's tenure as a government servant is hit by the statutory bar under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., and, in the absence of sanction, the proceedings stand vitiated insofar as the petitioner is concerned. On merits, it is submitted that, after registration of the crime, a sub-committee was constituted to enquire into the allegations. Upon evaluating the material on record, the committee concluded that the petitioner had no role in the malpractice. It further found that the petitioner was not a beneficiary, as he was not ultimately selected on the basis of the marks awarded in the examination. It is also urged that the petitioner had no connection whatsoever with Prof. K.S.Shivanna or A.K.Monnappa, the then Secretary. Counsel submits that -5- NC: 2026:KHC:13872 CRL.P No. 1716 of 2026 HC-KAR the petitioner, for no fault of his, has been subjected to the stigma of a criminal prosecution, causing humiliation within the department. The continuation of the proceedings, despite lack of material, is a clear abuse of process, and indulgence is sought to give a quietus to an incident dating back to 1998, as the petitioner continues to suffer indignity even after 26 years.
4. Per-contra, the learned Additional SPP strongly opposes the grant of any relief to the petitioner, contending that there is adequate material to prosecute him, and hence this is not a fit case for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
5. Having considered the submissions of both sides, this Court has carefully examined the charge-sheet materials as well as the additional documents produced by the petitioner.
6. The enquiry report placed at Annexure-C assumes significance in deciding the petitioner's fate in the present -6- NC: 2026:KHC:13872 CRL.P No. 1716 of 2026 HC-KAR proceedings. It is therefore appropriate to refer to the relevant observations of the sub-committee insofar as the petitioner is concerned. Paragraph 28 of the report is particularly decisive and is extracted below:
"28. The theory of conspiracy between these officers, Prof. K.S.Shivanna, Shri.A.K.Monappa and Shri K.Rameshwarappa, also does not explain Prof. K.S.Shivanna having allotted higher marks to other six candidates against whom action has been taken by the Commission. The sub-commission report admits this shortcoming by stating that "In case of Smt.Leela M.ShriPonappa, Shri Naveen P.C, Shri Subash K.G, Shri.Pratap K.R and Shri. Caveriappa, prima facie, Committee could not establish nexus between a Dr.K.S.Shivanna, Secretary A.K.Monappa and these six candidates but irresistible inference leads to show that they have indulged in malpractice (why and how Prof. K.S.Shivanna picks up all the four coded answer scripts of these six candidates only and awards erroneous marks over and above the marks)". The sub-committee has therefore clearly admitted that the conspiracy theory propounded by its does not provide a satisfactory explanation for all the irregularities on record."
(Emphasis Supplied)
7. This Court also deems it fit to extract the relevant portion of the findings of the sub-committee. Para 17(2) would be relevant. The same reads as under:
"(2) in the case if Smt. Leela M, Sri. Ponnappa, Sri. Naveen, Sri.Subhash K.G, Sri.Pratap K.R and -7- NC: 2026:KHC:13872 CRL.P No. 1716 of 2026 HC-KAR Sri.Cauverappa, the prima facie committee could not establish a nexus between Dr.K.S.Shivanna, Secretary Sri A.K.Mounappa and these candidates but irresistible interference leads to show they have indulged in mal practice (why and how Prof. Shivanna picks up all the 4 coded answer of these candidates only, and awarded enormous marks over and above the examiners marks for scripts which obviously do not merit such marks.) therefore the committee recommends that their candidate also may be cancelled after due process of equity."
8. On a careful perusal of the extracted findings of the Sub-committee, it emerges that the Committee was unable to establish any nexus between the petitioner and the then Secretary, Sri A.K. Monnappa. Nevertheless, the Committee proceeded to opine that the petitioner, along with a few others, had allegedly indulged in malpractice and had secured marks higher than what they legitimately deserved.
9. A close reading of the Sub-committee's observations reveals one significant aspect: the material against the petitioner is, at best, doubtful. The report does not attribute to him any clear or cogent role in the alleged irregularities, nor does it indicate any concrete -8- NC: 2026:KHC:13872 CRL.P No. 1716 of 2026 HC-KAR evidence of conspiracy with the Chief Examiner or the Examiner. Apart from these tentative findings, the charge- sheet materials do not provide any independent or additional evidence that would justify putting the petitioner to trial. The prosecution case, therefore, rests only on suspicion rather than proof capable of establishing the petitioner's culpability.
10. The next aspect that requires examination is the nature of the offences for which the petitioner has been charge-sheeted, namely, Sections 120-B, 109, 119, 166, 409, 418 and 420 of the IPC. The charge-sheet material itself discloses that the petitioner was not ultimately selected for appointment on the strength of the allegedly inflated marks. Thus, even assuming that certain marks were irregularly awarded, they did not culminate in any tangible benefit or advantage to the petitioner.
11. To constitute an offence under Section 420 of the IPC, it is well settled that there must be a clear -9- NC: 2026:KHC:13872 CRL.P No. 1716 of 2026 HC-KAR fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception, which must induce a person so deceived to part with property or to do or omit to do something resulting in wrongful gain to the accused or wrongful loss to another. In the present case, the alleged escalation of marks did not enable the petitioner either to qualify in the examination or to secure employment to the post for which he had applied. Consequently, even if the charge-sheet allegations are taken at their face value, the element of fraudulent inducement leading to a valuable security or wrongful gain is conspicuously absent. Mere suspicion of deception or dishonesty, without proof of consequential gain or loss, would not amount to an offence under Section 420 IPC.
12. Since the essential ingredients of Section 420 are not made out against the petitioner, and having regard to the categorical observations of the fact-finding Committee, which found no material establishing any nexus between the petitioner and the Chief Examiner or the Examiner, this Court is of the considered view that the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13872 CRL.P No. 1716 of 2026 HC-KAR petitioner has been unnecessarily subjected to a criminal prosecution for nearly twenty-six years. The petitioner, now aged about 56 years, has borne the brunt of this stigma and humiliation for more than two and a half decades, despite the absence of convincing material warranting his prosecution. The interests of justice, therefore, demand that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be exercised to put an end to this prolonged ordeal.
13. Upon a comprehensive evaluation of the charge-sheet and the material placed on record, this Court is satisfied that there exists no reasonable prospect of conviction. The petitioner has already endured the rigours of criminal proceedings for close to twenty-six years. To compel him to face a full-fledged trial, in the face of such frail and unsubstantiated material, would amount to an abuse of the process of law and a perpetuation of unnecessary harassment. In order to prevent further misuse of the judicial process and to secure the ends of
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13872 CRL.P No. 1716 of 2026 HC-KAR justice, this Court finds it a fit case to invoke its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed;
(ii) The proceedings pending in Spl.C.C.No.25/2011 (Crime No.28/2004) (C.C.No.5540/2008) on the file of the LXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-78) for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 109, 119, 166, 409, 418 and 420 of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 insofar as petitioner is concerned, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 18