Karnataka High Court
Sanjukumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6966
CRL.P No. 201501 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201501 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SANJUKUMAR S/O. PARMESHWAR PUJARI,
AGE: 39 YEARS,
OCC: SURVEYOR IN TAHASILDAR OFFICE,
BIDAR, DIST: BIDAR-585401.
R/O. SAVALESHWAR, TQ: ALAND,
DIST: KALABURAGI-585302.
(AS PER CHARGE SHEET)
2. RAJSHEKHAR BIRADAR
S/O. KANTEPPA BIRADAR,
Digitally signed AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC:
by NIJAMUDDIN OCC: SURVEYOR IN TAHASILDAR OFFICE,
JAMKHANDI
Location: HIGH BIDAR, DIST: BIDAR-585401.
COURT OF R/O. DHUPATMAHAGAON,
KARNATAKA
TQ: AURAD(B), "DIST: BIDAR.
(AS PER CHARGE SHEET)
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANJAY A. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH
LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION, BIDAR,
BIDAR, DIST: BIDAR-585401.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6966
CRL.P No. 201501 of 2025
HC-KAR
REPRESENTED BY SPL. PROSECUTOR,
SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR ADVOCATE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH KALABURAGI-585107.
2. SIDDAYYA S/O. NAGAYYA SWAMY,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HONNIKER, TQ: AND DIST: BIDAR.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FOREST GUEST HOUSE,
NAUBAD, BIDAR, DIST: BIDAR-585401
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPURA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/O DATED 16.10.2025 NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W)
THIS CRL.P FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.
(OLD), UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING A)
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL C. (PC) NO.53/2017
ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR
TO BE TRIED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.7,
13(1)(D) R/W 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,
1988 AND SEC.34 OF IPC AS PER CHARGE SHEET, IN SO FAR
AS PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 ARE CONCERNED
(ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.11/2015 REGISTERED BY
LOKAYUKTA POLICE BIDAR) ON ITS FILE, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6966
CRL.P No. 201501 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The petition is filed by petitioners invoking inherent
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of the
pending proceedings in Special Case (PC) No.53/2017
arising out of Crime No.11/2015 registered by Lokayukta
Police, Bidar for the offence punishable under Sections 7
and 13(1) (D) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 pending on the file of Prl. District and
Sessions Judge, Bidar.
2. The petitioners contend that the continuation of
criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the
process of law, particularly in light of their exoneration on
identical charges in a detailed departmental enquiry
conducted by the Upalokayukta. It is submitted that the
allegations were thoroughly examined in the said enquiry,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6966
HC-KAR
and the charges were categorically held to be
unsustainable on merits.
3. The brief facts leading to the present
proceedings are as under:
A complaint came to be lodged before respondent
No.1 on 27.08.2015, wherein the complainant asserted
that he desired to get the phodi work carried out in
respect of land bearing Sy.No.104, measuring 16 acres 10
guntas, jointly owned by his father, brother, and himself.
According to the complainant, when he approached
petitioner No.2, who was then working as a Surveyor in
the office of the Tahsildar, petitioner No.2 allegedly
demanded illegal gratification of Rs.50,000/- for facilitating
the said work.
4. The complainant further asserts that being
unwilling to succumb to the alleged demand, he
approached the Lokayukta Police on 22.08.2015 and
narrated the incident. In accordance with the standard
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6966
HC-KAR
trap procedures, the Lokayukta Police provided a digital
voice recorder to the complainant to capture the alleged
conversation. It is alleged that petitioner No.2 later visited
the complainant along with petitioner No.1, during which
petitioner No.2 reiterated demands of Rs.20,000/- for
preparation of the Tippani, Rs.15,000/- for survey work
and Rs.3,000/- each for accused Nos.1 and 2 towards
ancillary expenses. The complainant claims that these
conversations were duly recorded.
5. Based on the above allegations, Crime
No.11/2015 was registered. Subsequently, on 27.08.2015
at around 6.30 p.m., the Lokayukta Police organised a
trap, during which petitioner No.2 was allegedly caught
while demanding Rs.20,000/- from the complainant. Both
petitioners were thereafter apprehended and produced
before the jurisdictional Court. Upon completion of
investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the learned
District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, took cognizance and
registered Special Case (PC) No.53/2017 for trial.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6966
HC-KAR
6. The petitioners submit that the departmental
enquiry initiated on the very same set of allegations,
evidence, and circumstances resulted in their complete
exoneration on merits. It is urged that since a
departmental inquiry operates on a comparatively lesser
standard of proof namely, preponderance of probabilities
and even on such standard the charges were found to be
unsubstantiated, permitting the criminal prosecution,
which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, to proceed
would be unwarranted. The petitioners further emphasize
that no additional, independent, or fresh material is relied
upon by the prosecution in the criminal case. Therefore,
continuation of the criminal proceedings would be a futile
exercise and an abuse of process, contrary to the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal,
(2011) 3 SCC 581.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
Lokayukta submits that mere exoneration in a
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6966
HC-KAR
departmental inquiry does not automatically warrant
quashing of criminal proceedings. It is contended that
pursuant to the trap, the petitioners were caught red-
handed while demanding illegal gratification, thereafter
apprehended, and produced before the competent Court.
It is further submitted that a departmental enquiry being a
summary proceeding, its outcome cannot be a sole basis
for terminating criminal prosecution.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the judgments relied upon, the issue that
arises for consideration is:
"Whether continuation of criminal proceedings
is justified when the petitioners have been
exonerated on merits in a departmental inquiry
on identical charges, and when no additional
material is forthcoming in the criminal case?"
9. Before examining the sustainability of the
proceedings, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the
relevant findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer while
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6966
HC-KAR
exonerating the petitioners. Paragraphs 20 to 30 of the
enquiry report are of particular significance, and the same
are therefore reproduced herein for ready reference:
"20. PW-1/Complainant has turned hostile in toto
and categorically stated that DGO-1 & 2 have not
demanded bribe amount from him for his work.
Further he has admitted his signature in ExP1 to
ExP3, but stated that he does not know the
contents of ExP1 to ExP3.
21. The evidence of CW2/ Shadow witness who is
an independent eye witness who has observed
what transpired between the complainant and the
DGO-2 is reported to be dead and is not available
to the Disciplinary Authority for the reasons stated
supra.
22. The evidence of PW2/panch witness and
PW3/I.O. speak only about trap proceedings that
is after entering the chamber of DGOS after
getting the pre-arranged signal from PW1. Further
PW1 has categorically denied having recorded the
conversation between himself and the DGO-1& 2
with respect to demand of bribe.
23. As such the disciplinary authority has not
placed any direct evidence with respect to demand
of bribe amount by DGO-1 and DGO-2 and
acceptance of bribe by DGO-2 on the instructions
of DGO-1, as PW1/complainant has not stated
anything in this regard and the evidence of
CW2/shadow witness is not available.
24. PW3/Investigating Officer has deposed about
seizure of voice recordings given by PW1 at the
time of pre-trap and voice recordings given by
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6966
HC-KAR
him to PW1 at the time of trap proceedings.
Further PW3/I.O has deposed about playing the
same before panchas and Smt.Shantala Chandan,
Grade-11 Thasildar and about getting it burnt to
CD and transcribed and about Smt. Shantala
Chandan, Grade-II Thasildar identifying the voice
of DGO-1 & 2 in the said recordings. Moreover
PW1/complainant himself has not stated anything
about recording the conversation between himself
and DGOs and has stated that he has not given
any recordings to I.O. Such being the case the
evidence of PW3/I.O. in this regard cannot be
accepted.
25. The DGO-1 has taken specific contention that
the application number 0504813442284 was
received on 15/05/2014 and on 02/07/2014 it has
been examined by the case worker and on
03/07/2014 it has been placed before survey
supervisor. The survey supervisor had allotted the
work of the complainant to one licensed surveyor
by name Prasanna. The licensed surveyor has
received the file on 23/07/2014 and had updated
that the said work under "objection/Takararu" file
on 14/08/2014. Subsequently the work was
allotted to one surveyor by name Peter. The file
was rejected and was uploaded on 08/01/2016.
That he had no role in any of the proceedings.
That there was lot of files pending before him as
such he was disposing off the files as per
seniority. That no money was recovered from his
possession and there are no voice recordings of
him wherein he has demanded the bribe. That he
has not committed any misconduct and he has not
committed any act of corruption. DGO-1 has given
explanation in this regard as per Ex.P-7. In
support of his contention DGO-1 has got himself
examined contention. as DW-1 and reiterated the
above contention.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6966
HC-KAR
26. The DGO-2 has taken specific contention that
he came to know that the record has come to one
Surveyor Sri. Prasanna Kumar he told that there
is no Tipani' and the disputed record does not
come under his jurisdiction and later on the record
has come to DGO-1 and on 27/08/2015 some
unknown person came and gave money and he
does not know why he has given the amount
DGO-2 has given explanation in this regard as per
Ex. P-8.
27. From the above evidence of PW-1, it reveals
that DGO-1 & 2 have not demanded any bribe
from him for his work and DGO-2 has not
accepted the bribe amount from him. The
evidence of PW-1 corroborates the defence taken
by DGO-1 and 2 and probablises their defence.
Further the evidence of PW-1 goes to show that
there was no work of PW1 pending before DGO-1
& 2 and PW1/complainant himself has clearly
stated that DGO-1 & DGO-DGO-2 have not
demanded any bribe for his work. As such the
disciplinary authority has failed to prove that the
work of PW1/complainant was pending before the
DGO-1 & 2 to demand illegal gratification for
official favour.
28. From the evidence of PW1 to PW3 it can be
gathered that PW1 complainant has turned hostile
in toto, the evidence of CW2/shadow witness is
not available for the reason stated supra.
PW2/panch witness and PW3/ I.O. went to the
spot after getting pre-arranged signal and they
have admittedly not seen the demand and
acceptance of the bribe amount by the DGOs. No
material is placed to show that the work of PW1
was pending before DGO-1 & 2. As such there is
no clear, cogent and convincing evidence placed
by the disciplinary authority to show the demand
and acceptance of bribe amount by the DGOs for
official favour from PW1.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6966
HC-KAR
29. Further as per the evidence of PW3/ I.O. he
has not produced CD with respect to the
recordings of the conversation in the voice
recorder which was produced by PW1/complainant
at the time of Ex.P-2 pre-trap mahazar. As such
the same cannot be relied upon.
30. It is well settled that mere recovery of tainted
currency notes and positive result of
phenolphthalein test is not sufficient to establish
the guilt of the DGOs, unless there is
corroboration of testimony of complainant,
regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by the
DGOs. In the present case, demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification by the DGOs has
not been established."
10. On a close and careful examination of the
findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, certain crucial
aspects emerge with unmistakable clarity. The foremost
among them is that the allegations forming the basis of
both the departmental enquiry and the present criminal
proceedings are identical in material particulars. The
factual substratum, the nature of accusations, and the
witnesses cited are the same. A comparative reading of
the enquiry records and the charge-sheet materials
demonstrates that the very witnesses whose testimony
was evaluated during the departmental enquiry have been
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6966
HC-KAR
again cited in the criminal proceedings. Thus, the
evidentiary foundation in both proceedings is not merely
similar but substantially identical.
11. A further, significant circumstance that cannot
be lost sight of is that the key shadow witness who was
indispensable for proving the alleged demand is reported
to be no longer alive. More importantly, the complainant
himself, who is the pivot of the entire prosecution version,
did not support the allegations during the departmental
proceedings and categorically resiled from his earlier
statements. The records reveal that the departmental
authority undertook a full-fledged enquiry by examining all
relevant witnesses and documents. Upon such detailed
scrutiny, it was concluded that the charges were wholly
unproved. The prosecution has not placed any new,
independent, or additional material along with the charge
sheet that could distinguish the criminal case from the
departmental enquiry. Hence, the criminal case is entirely
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6966
HC-KAR
founded on the very same evidence which has already
been disbelieved.
12. It is well-settled and needs no reiteration that
the standard of proof required in a criminal trial is
fundamentally different and when compared to a
departmental enquiry. Whereas a departmental enquiry
proceeds on the touchstone of preponderance of
probabilities, a criminal prosecution mandates proof
beyond all reasonable doubt. This distinction has been
repeatedly emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a
catena of judgments, including P.S. Rajya v. State of
Bihar, (1996) 9 SCC 1; Radheshyam Kejriwal v.
State of West Bengal, (2011) 3 SCC 581; and Ashoo
Surendranath Tiwari v. DSP, EOW, CBI, (2020) 9 SCC
636. The cumulative legal effect of these authoritative
pronouncements is that where allegations fail even on the
lower standard of proof applicable to departmental
proceedings, they cannot be permitted to survive the
higher threshold required in criminal law.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6966
HC-KAR
13. Applying these settled principles to the facts on
hand, it becomes evident that the petitioners were
subjected to a comprehensive departmental enquiry,
conducted parallel to the criminal prosecution, on the very
same allegations, evidence, and circumstances. The
enquiry was neither summary nor perfunctory in nature.
On the contrary, the records reflect that it was a detailed,
structured and exhaustive exercise. Several witnesses,
including the complainant, the officers involved in the trap
proceedings, as well as officials conversant with the phodi
and tippani procedures, were examined at length. The
allegations were scrutinized from all relevant angles before
the petitioners were exonerated.
14. The enquiry report reveals that the complainant
(PW-1) unequivocally turned hostile and did not support
the allegations of demand or acceptance of illegal
gratification. The shadow witness who would have been a
crucial independent witness to corroborate the alleged
demand is no longer alive and therefore unavailable to
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6966
HC-KAR
testify. The Enquiry Officer, after a meticulous analysis of
the entire material, recorded a clear finding that no
evidence worthy of reliance was forthcoming even to
establish the charge on the basis of preponderance of
probabilities. Consequently, by a detailed and reasoned
order dated 22.07.2024, the disciplinary authority dropped
the charges and exonerated the petitioners. The findings
are categorical that the prosecution story collapsed on
merits and failed to cross even the minimum evidentiary
threshold applicable to departmental proceedings.
15. In view of these critical findings recorded in the
departmental proceedings, coupled with the authoritative
pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.S.
Rajya, Radheshyam Kejriwal, and Ashoo
Surendranath Tiwari, this Court is of the considered
opinion that continuation of the criminal prosecution in
Special Case (PC) No.53/2017 would constitute sheer
abuse of process of law. The prosecution being entirely
based on evidence already disbelieved in a detailed
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6966
HC-KAR
enquiry, and no additional material having been brought
on record, the criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to
continue.
16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds
to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii. The entire proceedings in Special Case
(PC) No.53/2017, arising out of Crime
No.11/2015 registered by the Lokayukta
Police, Bidar, for the offences punishable
under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending on the
file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge,
Bidar are hereby quashed.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6966
HC-KAR
iii. All pending interlocutory applications, if
any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NJ
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2/CT:SI
