Karnataka High Court
Ashif S/O Late Mallikasab Mushapuri vs State By Acp Police on 15 September, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12064
CRL.P No. 102247 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102247 OF 2023
(482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
ASHIF S/O LATE MALLIKASAB MUSHAPURI,
AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT,
NOW WORKING AT: REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVES
SOCIETIES, BENGALURU, NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD,
VASANTHNAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 052.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHANKAR P. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY ACB POLICE, BELAGAVI,
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580 011.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, SPL.P.P.)
Digitally THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
signed by
RAKESH
RAKESH S
HARIHAR
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS FROM SPL. CASE
S
HARIHAR
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
NO.43/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF IVTH ADDL. DISTRICT AND
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL JUDGE BELAGAVI AND QUASH CHARGE
SHEET, BEARING SPL. CASE NO.43/2021 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7(A) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION
AMENDMENT ACT 2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF IVTH ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL JUDGE BELAGAVI,
(ANNEXURE-C) BY EXERCISING POWER UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER
IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12064
CRL.P No. 102247 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed with
a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in Special Case
No.43 of 2021 pending before the Court of IV Additional
District and Sessions Judge and Special Judicial, Belagavi
arising out of Crime No.9 of 2019 registered for offence
punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondent, who has filed statement
of objection.
3. Facts leading to filing of this criminal petition
narrated briefly are:
Based on the first information received from de facto
complainant, FIR in Crime No.9 of 2019 was registered
against the petitioner on 27.08.2019 for offence punishable
under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12064
HC-KAR
Allegation against the petitioner, who was working as an
Assistant Registrar in the Department of Co-operative
Societies at Bailhongol, is that he had demanded a bribe of
₹25,000/- to permit the de facto complainant to collect
money from the shareholders of the proposed Co-operative
Society, intended to be formed by the first informant, his
friends and others. The bribe amount on negotiation was
allegedly brought down to ₹20,000/-. The complainant was
not willing to pay the bribe amount. Thereafter, after
recording his conversation with the accused, he had
approached the Police and based on his first information,
FIR in Crime No.9 of 2019 was registered. In a trap that
was held subsequently on 28.08.2019, the petitioner
allegedly was caught red handed while receiving the bribe
amount of ₹10,000/-. After completing investigation, charge
sheet was filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid
offence and the Trial Court after taking cognizance of the
charge sheet offence had issued summons to the petitioner
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12064
HC-KAR
in Special Case No.43 of 2021. Challenging the proceedings
in the aforesaid case, petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
the Departmental Enquiry that was held against the
petitioner on the same set of facts, petitioner has been
exonerated. All the material charge witnesses were
examined in the departmental proceedings. Therefore, in
view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari vs. The Deputy
Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and another1,
petitioner's prayer needs to be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
submits that, merely for the reason that petitioner has been
exonerated in the departmental proceedings, criminal
proceedings initiated against him cannot be quashed. He
submits that there are many more charge sheet witnesses
to be examined. He submits that in the charge sheet, totally
(2020) 9 SCC 636
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12064
HC-KAR
19 charge sheet witnesses have been cited as CW1 to
CW19. In the departmental proceedings only 5 witnesses
were examined. He submits that in the present case, charge
is already framed and trial in the case has commenced.
Therefore, at this stage the prayer made in the petition
cannot be granted. He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Government
of NCT of Delhi)2 has held that even in the absence of
primary oral or documentary evidence, it is permissible to
draw an inferential deduction of culpability or guilt of a
public servant under Section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, based on other evidence including
circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution. In
support of his arguments that criminal proceedings cannot
be quashed after trial has commenced, he has placed
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. Thirukkural
(2023) 4 SCC 731
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12064
HC-KAR
Perumal3. He submits that since all the material charge
sheet witnesses are not examined in the departmental
proceedings, in view of the law laid down in the case of
Sanju Rajan Nayar vs. Jayaraj and another4, the prayer
made in the petition is liable to be rejected.
6. In the charge sheet which is filed against the
petitioner, prosecution has all together cited 19 charge
sheet witnesses. CW1 Fakirappa is the de facto complainant
in the present case. CW2 Eranna and CW3 Shivaji
Ganapatrao are panch witnesses and CW4 Sunil Patatar is
the shadow witness. CW5 and CW6 have identified the voice
of the accused found in the conversation that was recorded
by CW1. Out of the aforesaid six material charge sheet
witnesses, five witnesses were examined in the
Departmental Enquiry that was held by a retired District and
Sessions Judge against the petitioner herein. In the
Departmental Enquiry, having appreciated the oral and
(1995) 2 SCC 449
2024 SCC online SC 582
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12064
HC-KAR
documentary evidence placed on record, the Enquiry Officer
has recorded a finding that the prosecution has failed to
prove the charges alleged against the petitioner and the
enquiry report dated 16.09.2022 has been accepted and the
petitioner has been exonerated on merits in the said
proceedings.
7. 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 [Radheshyam Kejriwal
v. State of W.B., (2011) 3 SCC 581 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri)
721] , SCC p. 598)
"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;
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12064
HC-KAR
(iii) 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;
(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 [Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B.,
SCC p. 598, para 39)
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12064
HC-KAR
"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 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."
8. In the present case, in the Departmental Enquiry
held against the petitioner, there is a specific find that
charges against him with regard to alleged demand and
acceptance of bribe was not proved and accordingly he was
exonerated in the departmental proceedings. In the case of
Neeraj Dutta, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the
absence of any direct primary oral or documentary
evidence, it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction
of culpability by the guilt of a public servant under Sections
7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2), based on other
evidence including circumstantial evidence produced by the
prosecution. In the case on hand, the material charge sheet
witnesses have been examined in the departmental
proceedings and after appreciating the oral and
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12064
HC-KAR
documentary evidence that was produced on behalf of the
prosecution, in the departmental proceedings, the Enquiry
Officer, who is a retired District and Sessions Judge, has
held that the charges levelled against the petitioner has not
proved in the departmental proceedings. In spite of primary
evidence being available in the departmental proceedings,
the petitioner has been exonerated in the said proceedings
and therefore, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta (supra)
cannot be made applicable to the case on hand.
9. The judgment in the case of Thirukkural
Perumal (supra) has been rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in a case registered for offences punishable
under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and since trial
had commenced in the said proceedings, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed that it was not proper for the
High Court to quash the criminal proceedings at the said
stage. In the present case, petitioner has questioned the
impugned proceedings, placing reliance on the judgment of
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12064
HC-KAR
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashoo
Surendranath Tewari (supra), where the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is totally different.
Therefore, the judgment in the case of Thirukkural
Perumal (supra) also cannot be made applicable to the
facts and circumstances of the present case.
10. In the case of Sanju Rajan Nayar (supra),
considering the fact that continuation of the trial as against
the accused in the said case was not on the very same
evidence that was placed in the disciplinary proceedings,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court
was not justified in quashing the criminal proceedings
initiated against the accused merely for the reason that he
was exonerated in the departmental enquiry proceedings.
Same is not the situation in the present case. In the present
case, out of the six material independent charge sheet
witnesses, five have been examined in the departmental
proceedings and other than the aforesaid six, the remaining
charge sheet witnesses are also official witnesses.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12064
HC-KAR
Therefore, the judgment in the case of Sanju Rajan Nayar
(supra) also cannot be made applicable to the fact of this
case.
11. It is trite that judgments can be relied as
precedents only if they are applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Haryana Financial Corporation and another
vs. Jagdamba Oil Mills and another5 has observed in
paragraph Nos.19 to 21 as follows:
"19. Courts should not place reliance on
decisions without discussing as to how the factual
situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision
on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts
are not to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as
provisions of the statute. These observations must
be read in the context in which they appear.
Judgments of courts are not to be construed as
statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions
of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to
embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is
meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret
(2002) 3 SCC 496
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12064
HC-KAR
statues, they do not interpret judgments. They
interpret words of statutes, their words are not to be
interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co.
Ltd. v. Horton (1951 AC 737 at P. 761), Lord Mac
Dermot observed:
"The matter cannot, of course, be settled
merely by treating the ipsissima vertra of Willes, J.
as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and
applying the rules of interpretation appropriate
thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight
to be given to the language actually used by that
most distinguished judge."
20. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. (1970
(2) All ER 294) Lord Reid said, "Lord Atkin's
speech..is not to be treated as if it was a statute
definition. It will require qualification in new
circumstances." Megarry, J. in (1971) 1 WLR 1062
observed: "One must not, of course, construe even a
reserved judgment of even Russell L.J. as if it were
an Act of Parliament." And, in Herrington v. British
Railways Board, (1972) 2 WLR 537 Lord Morris said:
"There is always peril in treating the words of a
speech or judgment as though they are words in a
legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered
that judicial utterances made in the setting of the
facts of a particular case."
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12064
HC-KAR
21. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional
or different fact may make a world of difference
between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases
by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not
proper."
12. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion
that impugned criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
Criminal Petition is allowed.
The entire proceedings in Special Case No.43 of 2021
pending before the Court of IV Additional District and
Sessions Judge and Special Judicial, Belagavi arising out of
Crime No.9 of 2019 registered for offences punishable
under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 as against the petitioner is quashed.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
RSH / CT:BCK
