Karnataka High Court
Ravi @ Ravindra Rajapooth vs The State By Lokayukta Police on 7 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6646
WP No. 203159 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.203159 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RAVI @ RAVINDRA RAJAPOOTH,
S/O SITHARAM,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
WORKING AS HOME GUARD,
RTO CHECK POST, DHULKHED,
RESIDING AT NO.1324/EU,
NEKARA COLONY, KHDC INDI TALUK,
CHADCHAN, CHADCHAN EXTENSION,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586205.
2. SRI. SHARANAPPA SIDRAMAPPA SADDALAGI,
S/O SIDRAMAPPA SADDALAGI,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
WORKING AS HOME GUARD,
RTO CHECK POST, DHULKHED,
Digitally signed RESIDING AT WARD NO.10,
by RENUKA NEKARA COLONY, MARADI,
Location: HIGH CHADCHAN, VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586205.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 3. SRI. SANTOSH BASAPPA DUPAD,
S/O BASAPPA DUPAD,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
WORKING AS HOME GUARD,
RTO CHECK POST, DHULKHED,
RESIDING AT WARD NO.15,
NEKARA COLONY,
CHADCHAN, INDI TALUK,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586205.
4. SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR SHANKAR PAREET,
S/O SHANKAR PAREET,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6646
WP No. 203159 of 2025
HC-KAR
WORKING AS HOME GUARD,
RTO CHECK POST, DHULKHED,
RESIDING AT WARD NO.09,
NEKARA COLONY, CHADCHAN,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586205.
5. SRI. SURESH S. TUPPAD
S/O SIDAGIREPPA TUPPAD,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
WORKING AS HOME GUARD,
RTO CHECK POST, DHULKHED,
RESIDING AT WARD NO.05,
B L D E ROAD, BASAVESHWAR
HOUSING COLONY,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586205.
6. SRI. BHIMASHANKAR SHREESHAIL BIRADAR,
S/O SHREESHAIL BIRADAR,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
WORKING AS HOME GUARD,
RTO CHECK POST, DHULKHED,
RESIDING AT SHIGANAPUR,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586117.
7. SRI. CHETAN NATIKAR S/O ASHOK,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
WORKING AS HOME GUARD,
RTO CHECK POST, DHULKHED,
RESIDING AT SHIGANAPUR,
INDI TALUK, INDI SUB DISTRICT,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586117.
8. SRI. MALLIKARJUN CHANDRAKANT BUKKA,
S/O CHANDRAKANT BUKKA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
WORKING AS HOME GUARD,
RTO CHECK POST, DHULKHED,
RESIDING AT CHADCHAN
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586205.
9. SRI. MANOHAR TALAKERI,
S/O GOVIND TALAKERI,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
WORKING AS HOME GUARD,
RTO CHECK POST, DHULKHED,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6646
WP No. 203159 of 2025
HC-KAR
RESIDING AT HALASANGI,
INDI TALUK, VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586207.
10. SRI. IRANNA SHIVAPPA DEVOOR,
S/O SHIVAPPA DEVOOR,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
WORKING AS HOME GUARD,
RTO CHECK POST, DHULKHED,
RESIDING AT WARD NO.01,
SHIVAJI CHOWK, CHADCHAN,
INDI TALUK,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586205.
11. SRI. LAXMAN SADASHIV KATTIMANI,
S/O SADASHIV KATTIMANI,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
WORKING AS HOME GUARD,
RTO CHECK POST, DHULKHED,
RESIDING AT NANDARGI, INDI TALUK,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586177.
12. SRI. MANJUNATH PUJARI,
S/O RAJSHEKHAR PUJARI,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
WORKING AS HOME GUARD,
RTO CHECK POST, DHULKHED,
RESIDING AT WARD NO.21,
IBRAHIMPUR, NEAR MARAGAMMANAKATTI
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586109.
13. SRI. REVANASIDDAPPA TALAVAR
S/O SHARANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
WORKING AS HOME GUARD,
RTO CHECK POST, DHULKHED,
RESIDING AT WARD NO.07,
BAJAR ONI, CHADCHAN,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586205.
14. SRI. YOGESH NAIK S/O DEVAJI NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
WORKING AS COMPUTER OPERATOR,
RTO CHECK POST, DHULKHED,
RESIDING AT WARD NO.IIG 42,
ASHRAM ROAD,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6646
WP No. 203159 of 2025
HC-KAR
NEAR BIJAPUR VIJAYA COLLEGE,
ADARSH NAGAR, VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586205.
15. SRI. RAJU @ ANTHONI RAJ S/O BALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 11TH WARD,
MARALUBAGILU, BEHIND MILK DAIRY,
DEVANAHALLI,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562110.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE
REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
2. THE STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, SPL. PP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BNSS,
PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
COMPLAINT DATED 28.12.2022 GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
(ANNEXURE-F) AND THE IMPUGNED FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CRIME NO.15/2022
DATED 28.12.2022 (ANNEXURE-G) AND ALL PROCEEDINGS
PURSUANT THERETO PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA, INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONERS
ARE CONCERNED (ACCUSED NO.3 TO 17).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6646
WP No. 203159 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The captioned petition is filed by the Home Guards
and Computer Operators deputed at Dhulkhed Check Post,
Chadachan Taluk, Vijayapura District, while petitioner
No.15 is a private person.
2. The petitioners in the present petition have
sought for quashing of the criminal proceedings on the
ground that the public servants, namely the Inspectors of
Motor Vehicles, who were arrayed as co-accused and
charged for the offences punishable under the provisions
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, have already
been exonerated by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
W.P. No.200473/2023 connected with W.P.
No.200524/2023, disposed of on 24.07.2023. Placing
reliance on the said judgment, learned counsel for the
petitioners would contend that once the proceedings have
been quashed against the principal accused who were the
officials in charge of the Check Post, the continuance of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6646
HC-KAR
the proceedings against the present petitioners, who were
only serving as Home Guards and Computer Operators
under their supervision, would be wholly unsustainable.
3. The learned counsel appearing for respondent
Nos.1 and 2 has fairly acknowledged the order passed by
this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions.
4. On perusal of the material placed on record,
this Court is of the considered view that the relief sought
in the present petition requires examination in the light of
the findings rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in respect of the very same incident forming the
subject matter of Crime No.15/2022.
5. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it
would be useful to extract the relevant observations and
findings recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
the aforesaid decision. For ready reference, paragraphs 12
to 15 of the said judgment are reproduced hereunder:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6646
HC-KAR
"12. To constitute an offence punishable under
Sections 7(a), 7A of the P.C. Act, the following essential
elements have to be satisfied:
a) Work of the complainant must be pending
before the accused;
b) There must be a demand by the accused
from the complainant to show official favour;
c) There must be acceptance of the gratification
amount in pursuance of the demand.
13. In the instant case, there is no material
produced along with the FIR that the petitioners had
demanded gratification amount to do any official work in
favour of any persons for checking the vehicles as to
whether the said vehicles are transporting the goods
after obtaining the permit from the competent
authorities. The investigation report also discloses that
the amount which was found in possession of the
petitioners herein was returned to them after the said
amount was accounted, and the same was reflected in
the cash register maintained in the office of the Check
Post. In the absence of any material that the petitioners
herein either demanded or accepted gratification to do
any official favour, the registration of the FIR for the
offences punishable under Sections 7(a) and 7A of the
P.C. Act is one without any substance.
14. To investigate an offence punishable under
Section 13(1)(b) of the P.C. Act, the second proviso of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6646
HC-KAR
Section 17 of the Act specifies that, an offence referred
to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the
P.C. Act shall not be investigated without the order of
the Police Officer not below the rank of the
Superintendent of Police.
15. In the instant case, the Superintendent of
Police has authorised the Deputy Superintendent of
Police to investigate the offences punishable under the
provisions of the P.C. Act. However, the Dy.S.P. instead
of investigating the offences under the provisions of P.C.
Act, has lodged the FIR with the Police Inspector
concerned for investigating the offence under Section
13(1)(b) of the P.C. Act against the petitioners herein.
Hence, the registration and conducting investigation of
the offences by the Police Inspector on the FIR lodged
by Dy.S.P. is contrary to the second proviso to Section
17 of the P.C. Act. Therefore, the registration of the FIR
stands vitiated."
6. Upon a careful and deeper consideration of the
judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, whereby the criminal proceedings against the public
servants who were the primary accused came to be
quashed, this Court is of the considered view that the
petitioners herein, who were merely discharging ancillary
and subordinate duties as Home Guards and Computer
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6646
HC-KAR
Operators at the concerned Check Post, stand on an
identical footing with those public servants in so far as the
alleged acts constituting the offence are concerned.
7. It is a settled proposition of law that where the
allegations and substratum of accusation are common, and
the principal accused against whom the allegations were
primarily directed have been exonerated by a competent
judicial forum, the continuance of proceedings against the
subordinate or ancillary accused would amount to a clear
violation of the doctrine of parity. The law of parity, as
consistently recognised by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this
Court, mandates that similarly placed co-accused, who are
sought to be prosecuted on the same factual foundation
and for the same alleged transaction, cannot be treated
differently merely because of their differing designations
or contractual status.
8. In the instant case, the Co-ordinate Bench has,
after a detailed analysis of the material on record,
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6646
HC-KAR
categorically held that the very initiation of proceedings
against the Inspectors of Motor Vehicles was unsustainable
in law. Once such finding has attained finality, the logical
corollary is that the prosecution against the present
petitioners, who were working under the supervision and
control of those very officers, cannot be permitted to
survive. The continuance of such proceedings would be
nothing but an exercise in futility, amounting to abuse of
the process of law.
9. In the considered view of this Court, therefore,
the principle of parity squarely applies to the case of the
present petitioners. When the main proceedings against
the superior officers have been quashed, it would be
manifestly unjust and contrary to the principles of natural
justice to allow the prosecution to continue against
subordinates whose alleged involvement arises solely by
virtue of their association with the same incident.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6646
HC-KAR
10. Accordingly, this Court, in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, deems it just and necessary to
extend the same relief to the petitioners, both to secure
the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the
Court. The possibility of securing any conviction against
the petitioners stands wholly eclipsed in view of the
quashment of proceedings against the principal accused,
and the continuation of the prosecution would serve no
useful purpose.
ORDER
The petition is accordingly allowed.
The impugned complaint dated 28.12.2022 lodged by
the first respondent at Annexure-F and the consequent
FIR registered in Crime No.15/2022 dated 28.12.2022 by
the second respondent at Annexure-G, presently pending
on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Vijayapura, together with all further proceedings
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6646
HC-KAR
emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed insofar as the
present petitioners are concerned.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NB
CT:SI
