[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Manjunath vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1866
CRL.P No. 202030 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 202030 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATH
S/O VIJAYAKUMAR JILLE
AGE: 36 YEARS
OCC: JUNIOR ASSISTANT
CUM DATA OPERATOR, KKRTC
DIVISIONAL OFFICE
BIDAR DIVISION
R/O DUBALGUNDI VILLAGE
TAL: HUMNABAD, DIST: BIDAR-585418.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. YELI PRAKASH B AND
SRI. NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATES)
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA AND:
DATTATRAYA UDAGI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA
THROUGH SHO
LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION
BIDAR, REP. BY
THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
KALABURAGI-585102.
2. VIDYADHAR
S/O SHIVARAM SAGAR
AGE: 49 YEARS
OCC: DRIVER CUM CONDUCTOR-96
KKRTC, BIDAR DIVISION, BIDAR.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1866
CRL.P No. 202030 of 2025
HC-KAR
NOW AT HUMNABAD UNIT
R/O: MUDABI, TAL: BASAVAKALYANA
DIST: BIDAR-585437.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR ADV., FOR R1;
V/O DTD 12.12.2025 NOTICE TO R2 IS DEFERRED
FOR THE BEING)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 528 OF BNSS, U/SEC 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND
QUASH THE IN CRIME NO.01/2024 ON THE FILE OF
LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION, BIDAR, REGISTERED FOR THE
COMMISSION OF OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7(a)
OF PC ACT, AS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.1/PETITIONER
HEREIN PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIDAR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the FIR against the
petitioner/accused in Crime No.1/2024, registered by
Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Bidar, for the offence punishable
under section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(Amendment 2018), (for short "the P.C. Act."), pending on the
file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Bidar.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1866
HC-KAR
2. The abridged facts of the case are, respondent
No.2-Vidyadhar was working as a driver-cum-conductor at
Basavakalyana Unit. On 11.06.2023 in duty hours, while he
was proceeding from Basavakalyana to Bengaluru, after
crossing Shahapur near Huttigudur, the officials checked the
tickets and found a passenger traveling without holding ticket.
As such, a memo was issued to respondent No.2. Later, he was
suspended by the Divisional Controller, KKRTC, Bidar. However,
respondent No.2 was reinstated after initiating the case against
the suspension order and he was deputed to Humnabad Unit.
3. During the Departmental Enquiry, the Divisional
Controller issued notice to respondent No.2 on 17.01.2024.
Accordingly, he approached the Divisional Controller on
30.01.2024 by giving reply and at that time, the petitioner-
Manjunath, being SDA, informed respondent No.2 that in order
to close two cases against him, he would persuade the
Divisional Controller and for the same, respondent No.2 has to
pay illegal gratification to the Divisional Controller. Accordingly,
he informed respondent No.2 to meet him on the next day.
Agreeing for the same, respondent No.2 left the office. Since,
respondent No.2 was unable to pay the said illegal gratification,
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1866
HC-KAR
approached respondent No.1-Police and gave information. As
per the direction of respondent No.1-Police along with voice
recorder, he approached the office of Divisional Controller,
KKRTC, Bidar and at that time, the petitioner came and
demanded Rs.20,000/- for each case, however, respondent
No.2 requested to reduce the amount, for which petitioner
assured him that he would consider the same after discussing
with Divisional Controller and finally, it was fixed for
Rs.35,000/- for both the cases. Hence, respondent No.2 lodged
a complaint before respondent No.1-Police on 05.02.2024 along
with the voice recorder and the same came to be registered in
Crime No.5/2020 for the aforementioned offence.
4. Subsequently, on the same day i.e., 05.02.2024,
respondent No.1-Police conducted entrustment panchanama
and held a trap and arrested petitioner/accused No.1 and
accused No.2 one Ravindra, who received the tainted money
from respondent No.2 one behalf of petitioner. Accordingly,
respondent No.1-Police produced them before the Court and
remanded to judicial custody. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner/accused No.1 preferred this petition.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1866
HC-KAR
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Special counsel for respondent No.1. Though notice is served to
respondent No.2, he remained absent.
6. Apart from urging several contentions, learned
counsel for the petitioner contended that, on perusal of the
complaint and FIR, no offence has been made out against the
petitioner under Section 7(a) of P.C. Act, since the prosecution
failed to place prima facie materials to prove the ingredients of
the offence i.e., (a) demand (b) acceptance and (c) work
entrustment or work pending. According to him, at no point of
time, the petitioner has demanded the illegal gratification and
the conversation allegedly recorded by respondent No.2 do not
disclose such conversation, as stated in the trap mahazar by
the Investigation Officer and the panch witnesses.
7. He further contended that the tainted money was
allegedly recovered from accused No.2. As such, no offence has
been made out against the petitioner, since the ingredient of
"acceptance" under Section 7 of P.C Act is not satisfied.
Further, there was no work of respondent No.2 entrusted to the
petitioner and the call details placed by respondent No.1-Police
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1866
HC-KAR
reveals that respondent No.2 himself insisted to receive the
bribe amount without any demand by the petitioner. Hence, he
contended that, even if the allegations made in the FIR taken
on its face value and accepted in its entirety, the same do not
prima facie constitute any offence against the petitioner. To
buttress his arguments, he relied the order of Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in W.P.No.104236/2023 dated 23.01.2024.
Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
8. Per contra, learned Special counsel appearing for
respondent No.1 opposed the petition by contending that there
is a clear demand of illegal gratification by the petitioner and
the same is recorded in a voice recorder and the conversation
between the petitioner and respondent No.2 found in the
pre-trap panchanama depicts that the petitioner demanded
illegal gratification for closing two cases pending against
respondent No.2. He also contended that the illegal gratification
was received by accused No.2 on behalf of the petitioner and
the petitioner assured respondent No.2 that he would get close
two cases pending against him. In such circumstance, it cannot
be said that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case to
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1866
HC-KAR
quash the proceedings. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the
petition.
9. I have given my anxious consideration both on the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective
parties and the documents made available before this Court.
10. On perusal of the complaint and other documents, it
could be gathered that the complaint lodged by respondent
No.2 for demand of illegal gratification of Rs.35,000/- by the
petitioner to close two cases pending against him. The
investigation materials, more particularly, the voice recording
held between the petitioner and respondent No.2 reveals that,
on 02.02.2024 the petitioner demanded Rs.20,000/- each for
getting close two cases pending against respondent No.2.
Though, the petitioner has not received the bribe amount, the
same was received by accused No.2 on behalf of the petitioner.
In such circumstance, Section 7(a) of the P.C Act prima facie
attracts against the petitioner.
11. The entire matter is at pre-mature stage and the
investigation has not proceeded with, except some preliminary
effort taken on the date of registration of the case. The
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1866
HC-KAR
evidence has to be gathered after a thorough investigation and
placed before the Court on the basis of which alone, Court can
come to a conclusion one way or other on the plea of
malafides. If the allegations are bereft of truth and made
malicious, the investigation will reveal the same. At this stage,
when there are only allegations and recriminations but no
evidence, this Court cannot anticipate the result of the
investigation and render a findings on the question of malafides
on the materials at present available. Therefore, it cannot be
said that the complaint should be thrown overboard on the
mere unsubstantiated plea of malafides. Even assuming that
the complaint has filed on account of personal animosity, that
by itself will not be a ground to discard the complaint
containing serious allegations, which have to be tested and
weighed after the evidence is collected.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anil
Bhavarlal Jain and Another vs. State of Maharashtra and
Others in Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.10078/2023
and 12776/2023 held that, in a case registered under the
special statute i.e., P.C. Act, a quashing of the offences under
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1866
HC-KAR
the said act would have a grave and substantial impact not just
on the parties involved, but also on the society at large.
13. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
State of Orissa and Another Vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo,
reported in (2005) 13 SCC 540, held in paragraph Nos.8 and
9 as follows:
"8. Exercise of power under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. in a case of this nature is the
exception and not the rule. The Section does not
confer any new powers on the High Court. It only
saves the inherent power which the Court
possessed before the enactment of the Cr.P.C. I
envisages three circumstances under which the
inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely,
(i) to give effect to an order under the Cr.P.C.,
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is
neither possible nor desirable to lay down any
inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of
inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment
dealing with procedure can provide for all cases
that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have
inherent powers apart from express provisions of
law which are necessary for proper discharge of
functions and duties imposed upon them by law.
That is the doctrine which finds expression in the
section which merely recognizes and preserves
inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts,
whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence
of any express provision, as inherent in their
constitution, all such powers as are necessary to
do the right and to undo a wrong in course of
administration of justice on the principle "quando
lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1866
HC-KAR
sine quo res ipsae esse non potest" (when the
law gives a person anything it gives him that
without which it cannot exist). While exercising
powers under the section, the court does not
function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent
jurisdiction under the section though wide has to
be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution
and only when such exercise is justified by the
tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It
is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real
and substantial justice for the administration of
which alone courts exist. Authority of the court
exists for advancement of justice and if any
attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to
produce injustice, the court has power to prevent
abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the
court to allow any action which would result in
injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In
exercise of the powers court would be justified to
quash any proceeding if it finds that
initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of
the process of court or quashing of these
proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of
justice. When no offence is disclosed by the
report, the court may examine the question of
fact. When a report is sought to be quashed, it is
permissible to look into the materials to assess
what the report has alleged and whether any
offence is made out even if the allegations are
accepted in toto.
11. As noted above, the powers
possessed by the High Court under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are very wide
and the very plenitude of the power
requires great caution in its exercise.
Court must be careful to see that its
decision in exercise of this power is
based on sound principles. The inherent
power should not be exercised to stifle a
legitimate prosecution. The High Court
being the highest court of a State should
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1866
HC-KAR
normally refrain from giving a prima
facie decision in a case where the entire
facts are incomplete and hazy, more so
when the evidence has not been
collected and produced before the Court
and the issues involved, whether factual
or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be
seen in their true perspective without
sufficient material. Of course, no hard
and fast rule can be laid down in regard
to cases in which the High Court will
exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of
quashing the proceeding at any stage.
(See: Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary,
[1992] 4 SCC 305, and Raghubir Saran
(Dr.) v. State of Bihar, AIR (1964) SC
1). It would not be proper for the High
Court to analyse the case of the
complainant in the light of all
probabilities in order to determine
whether a conviction would be
sustainable and on such premises arrive
at a conclusion that the proceedings are
to be quashed. It would be erroneous to
assess the material before it and
conclude that the complaint cannot be
proceeded with. When an information is
lodged at the police station and an
offence is registered, then the mala fides
of the informant would be of secondary
importance. It is the material collected
during the investigation and evidence led
in court which decides the fate of the
accused person. The allegations of mala
fides against the informant are of no
consequence and cannot by themselves
be the basis for quashing the
proceedings. (See: Dhanalakshmi v. R.
Prasanna Kumar, [1990] Supp SCC 686,
State of Bihar v. P. P. Sharma, AIR
(1996) SC 309, Rupan Deol Bajaj v.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1866
HC-KAR
Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, [1995] 6 SCC
194, State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan, AIR
(1999) SC 1044, State of U.P. v. O.P.
Sharma, [1996] 7 SCC 705, Rashmi
Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, [1997]
2 SCC 397, Satvinder Kaur v. State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi, AIR (1996) SC
2983 and Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of
Delhil, [1999] 3 SCC 259).
14. It is to be noted that the
investigation was not complete and at
that stage it was impermissible for the
High Court to look into materials, the
acceptability of which is essentially a
matter for trial. While exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C., it is not permissible for the
Court to act as if it was a trial Court.
Even when charge is framed at that
stage, the Court has to only prima facie
be satisfied about existence of sufficient
ground for proceeding against the
accused. For that limited purpose, the
Court can evaluate material and
documents on records but it cannot
appreciate evidence. The Court is not
required to appreciate evidence to
conclude whether the materials
produced are sufficient or not for
convicting the accused. In Chand
Dhawan (Smt.) v. Jawahar Lal and Ors.,
[1992] 3 SCC 317, it was observed that
when the materials relied upon by a
party are required to be proved, no
inference can be drawn on the basis of
those materials to conclude the
complaint to be unacceptable. The Court
should not act on annexures to the
petitions under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C., which cannot be termed as
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1866
HC-KAR
evidence without being tested and
proved." (Emphasis supplied)
9. The above decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court make it abundantly clear that the
Courts should be slow in exercising the power
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. especially where
serious allegations of Corruption by public
servants are made."
14. In the instant case, as discussed supra, the primary
ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 7(a) of
P.C. Act is made out by the prosecution and the same has to be
tested in a detailed trial. This Court cannot conduct a mini trial,
at this stage, to hold that whether the accusation made against
the petitioner will prove or not. On an entire perusal of charge
sheet materials, I am of the view that, continuation of criminal
proceedings against the petitioner will not amount to abuse of
process of Court. Hence, petition lacks merit and the same is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
HKV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16
CT-BH
