Karnataka High Court
Vishwanath vs Chief Administrative Officer on 23 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4170
CRL.P No. 200281 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200281 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
VISHWANATH S/O MARUTI
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE
KSRP, 12TH BATALIAN, TUMKUR
R/O AT ILLHAL POST, GHATHIPPARGA
TALUK BASAVAKALYAN
DIST: BIDAR-585 437. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
PRL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT
AT BIDAR - 585 401
Digitally signed by 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
SREEDHARAN BANGALORE
SUSHMA LAKSHMI THROUGH LOKAYUKTA P.S.,
Location: High Court of TALUK AND DIST: BIDAR - 585 401 ...RESPONDENTS
Karnataka
(BY SRI KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE. FOR R1;
SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, SPL.PP FOR R2 )
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND
ORDER IN SPECIAL CASE (PC) NO. 25/2015 DATED 14.09.2023
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SPECIAL JUDGE AND PRL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIDAR, IN SO FAR AS TAKING
COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCE U/S 193 OF IPC AND DIRECTING TO
REGISTER A CRIMINAL CASE BY EXERCISING JURISDICTION
U/S 344 OF CR.P.C., AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND QUASH
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4170
CRL.P No. 200281 of 2024
HC-KAR
THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 IN
C.C NO.2/2023 BEFORE THE LEARNED PRL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIDAR.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 19.03.2025 AT KALABURAGI BENCH, COMING
ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL
BENCH AT BENGALURU, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)
1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking
to set aside the judgment and order dated 14.09.2023
in Special Case (PC) No.25/2015, on the file of the
Special Judge and Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Bidar, wherein the order of taking cognizance under
Section 193 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') has
been passed by the Trial Court and respondent No.1
registered C.C.No.02/2023 against the petitioner.
2. The ranks of the parties henceforth will be considered
as per their rankings before the Trial Court, for
convenience.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4170
CRL.P No. 200281 of 2024
HC-KAR
Factural matrix of the case:
3. The petitioner herein is the complainant, filed a
complaint against the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'PC Act'). It is
stated that, the complainant being the petitioner
herein, has turned hostile and not supported the case
of the prosecution. Therefore, the Trial Court directed
the CMO to register a complaint against the petitioner
herein and the respondent No.1 registered
C.C.No.02/2023 under Section 193 of IPC.
4. Heard Sri Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Krupa Sagar Patil, learned counsel for
the respondent No.1 and Sri Subhash Mallapur, Spl.
Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2 - Lokayukta.
5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that, directing to register criminal case for
the offence punishable under section 193 of IPC and
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4170
CRL.P No. 200281 of 2024
HC-KAR
registration of C.C.No.02/2023 by the respondent No.1
are against to the settled principles of law. Therefore,
the same is liable to be set aside.
6. It is further submitted that the procedure for initiation
of criminal proceedings under the above said provisions
are contemplated under Section 340 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.'). To exercise
jurisdiction under Section 344 of Cr.P.C. does not
enable the Court to assume jurisdiction for the offence
under Section 193 of IPC.
7. It is further submitted that, before registration of the
case, the Court has to come to the conclusion that the
complainant had deposed falsely on oath intentionally
and deliberately. In the absence of such enquiry,
registration of the case cannot be sustained. Making
such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner
prays to allow the petition.
8. Per contra, learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the
respondent No.2 - Lokayukta justified the order passed
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4170
CRL.P No. 200281 of 2024
HC-KAR
by the Trial Court and further, he submitted that the
registration of criminal case for the offence punishable
under section 193 of IPC is proper and there is no
reason to interfere with the said findings. Making such
submissions, learned Spl. Public Prosecutor prays to
dismiss the petition.
9. Similarly, learned counsel for the respondent No.1
adopted the arguments of learned Spl. Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.2 - Lokayukta and prays
to dismiss the petition.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties
and also perused the findings of the Trial Court in
passing the impugned order, it appears from the record
that the petitioner was selected as a Police Constable
at Karnataka State Reserve Police and he has to obtain
Sindhutva Certificate. According to him, the Revenue
Inspector, namely, Vijaykumar Swamy had demanded
a sum of Rs.11,000/- as a bribe.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4170
CRL.P No. 200281 of 2024
HC-KAR
11. After he lodging the complaint, the law is set into
motion. After conducting the investigation, submitted
the charge sheet. In the evidence, he has turned
hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.
Therefore, the Trial Court directed the Chief Ministerial
Officer of the Court to initiate proceedings against the
petitioner.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not made
available the private complaint and other relevant
documents to the Court to arrive at a conclusion as to
whether this is a case to proceed against the witness
under Section 193 of Cr.P.C. Further, the depositions
are also not available on record. Therefore, at this
stage, the validity of initiation of criminal proceedings
against the petitioner cannot be held to be illegal, for
the reason that, the petitioner has not produced
depositions and other relevant documents for the
purpose of arriving at a conclusion.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4170
CRL.P No. 200281 of 2024
HC-KAR
13. In the light of the observation made above, I proceed
to pass the following:-
ORDER
The Criminal Petition is disposed of with a liberty
to file a similar petition, with all the relevant
documents, for the same relief.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
BSS
