Karnataka High Court
Ravi @ Ravindra vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 24 February, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1259
CRL.P No. 200798 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200798 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
RAVI @ RAVINDRA S/O SHIVARAJ,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: PUMP OPERATOR
EARLIER CASHIER TOWN MUNICIPAL BIDAR,
DIST. BIDAR,
R/O. KHENI RANJOL, TQ. HUMNABAD,
DIST. BIDAR,
PRESENTLY AT HOUSE NO.9-1-118/16,
NANDI COLONY, BIDAR-585401.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY A. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SHIVAKUMAR AND:
HIREMATH
Location: HIGH 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH,
COURT OF POLICE BIDAR LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION,
KARNATAKA DIST. BIDAR-585401,
R/BY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH.
2. SUNITA W/O MANOHAR MALGE,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT OF RURAL
DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,
R/O. LABOUR COLONY, BIDAR,
DIST. BIDAR-585401.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1259
CRL.P No. 200798 of 2024
(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 LOKAYUKTA
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO, A)
QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.C NO. 1/2013 ON THE
FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR
AGAINST THE PETITIONER, TRYING FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/SEC 7, 13(1)(d), R/W SEC 13(2) OF
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 ARISING OUT OF
CRIME NO. 4/2011 REGISTERED BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE
BIDAR, DISTRICT BIDAR. B) PASS ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER
OF DIRECTION AS DEEM FIT BY THIS HON'BLE COURT UNDER
THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
Accused in Spl.C.C.No.01/2013 pending before the
Court of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, arising out
of Crime No.4/2011 registered by Lokayukta Police, Bidar
for offences punishable under Sections 7, 31(1)(d) read
with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
is before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., with a
prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the aforesaid
case.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1259
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
on the very same set of allegations a departmental
enquiry was held against the petitioner and the witnesses
in the said proceedings had turned hostile to the case of
the prosecution and in the departmental enquiry the
petitioner has been exonerated on the merits of the case.
Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari vs.
Deputy Superintendent of police, EOW, CBI and Another1,
the petition needs to be allowed.
4. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the
respondent submits that the case before the Trial Court is
at the stage of arguments. However, he does not dispute
the fact that petitioner has been exonerated in the
departmental proceedings and the witnesses have not
supported the case of the prosecution in the departmental
proceedings.
(2020) 9 SCC 636
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1259
5. Material on record would go to show that on the
same set of allegations departmental enquiry was held as
against the petitioner and in the said proceedings the
witnesses who were examined on behalf of the prosecution
had not supported the case of the prosecution. It is under
these circumstances, in the departmental proceedings the
petitioner herein was exonerated on merits. Before the
Trial Court, the de-facto complainant has been examined
in the present case as PW-2 and shadow witness is said to
have been examined as PW-3, both these witnesses have
not supported the case of the prosecution.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra) in paragraph
Nos.12 and 13 has observed as follows:
12. After referring to various judgments,
this Court then culled out the ratio of those
decisions in para 38 as follows: (Radheshyam
Kejriwal case, SCC p. 598)
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1259
"38. The ratio which can be culled
out from these decisions can broadly be
stated as follows:
(i) Adjudication proceedings and
criminal prosecution can be launched
simultaneously:
(ii) Decision in adjudication
proceedings is not necessary before
initiating criminal prosecution;
(ii) Adjudication proceedings and
criminal proceedings are independent in
nature to each other,
(iv) The finding against the person
facing prosecution in the adjudication
proceedings is not binding on the
proceeding for criminal prosecution;
(v) Adjudication proceedings by the
Enforcement Directorate is not
prosecution by a competent court of law
to attract the provisions of Article 20(2)
of the Constitution or Section 300 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure;
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1259
(vi) The finding in the adjudication
proceedings in favour of the person
facing trial for identical violation will
depend upon the nature of finding. If the
exoneration in adjudication proceedings
is on technical ground and not on merit,
prosecution may continue; and
(vii) In case of exoneration,
however, on merits where the allegation
is found to be not sustainable at all and
the person held innocent, criminal
prosecution on the same set of facts and
circumstances cannot be allowed to
continue, the underlying principle being
the higher standard of proof in criminal
cases."
13. It finally concluded: (Radheshyam
Kejriwal case, SCC p. 598, para 39)
"39. In our opinion, therefore,
the yardstick would be to judge as
to whether the allegation in the
adjudication proceedings as well as
the proceeding for prosecution is
identical and the exoneration of the
person concerned in the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1259
adjudication proceedings is on
merits. In case it is found on merit
that there is no contravention of the
provisions of the Act in the
adjudication proceedings, the trial
of the person concerned shall be an
abuse of the process of the court."
7. It is not in dispute that in the present case, the
petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental
proceedings on merits and there is a specific finding that
charges against him with regard to alleged demand and
acceptance of bribe has not been proved.
8. In addition to the same PW-2 and PW-3, who
are the de-facto complainant and the shadow witnesses, in
the present case also have not supported the case of the
prosecution. Therefore, I am of opinion that the prayer
made by the petitioner for quashing the entire impugned
proceedings needs to be granted. Accordingly, the
following order:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1259
9. The criminal petition is allowed. The entire
proceedings in Spl.Case No.1/2013, pending before the
Court of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, arising out of
Crime No.4/2011 registered by Lokayukta Police, Bidar for
offences punishable under Sections 7, 31(1)(d) read with
Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as
against the petitioner/accused stands quashed.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
TMP
CT:PK
