P.C.Naveen vs The State Of Karnataka By Vidhana Soudha ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 943 Kant

Karnataka High Court

P.C.Naveen vs The State Of Karnataka By Vidhana Soudha ... on 6 February, 2026

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                                 -1-
                                                              NC: 2026:KHC:7089
                                                        CRL.P No. 16331 of 2025


                      HC-KAR




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                               BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                               CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16331 OF 2025
                      BETWEEN:

                      1.    P.C. NAVEEN
                            AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
                            S/O. P.H.CHANDRASHEKAR,
                            R/AT NO.966, 7TH MAIN,
                            GOKULAM 3RD STAGE,
                            MYSURU - 570 002

                      2.    K.R. PRATHAP
                            AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
                            S/O. K.K. RAVINDRAPRASAD,
                            R/AT NO.377/A, 7TH CROSS,
                            7TH MAIN, AZAD NAGAR,
Digitally signed by
SANJEEVINI J                CHAMARAJPET,
KARISHETTY                  BENGALURU - 560 018
Location: High                                                    ...PETITIONERS
Court of Karnataka
                      (BY SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)
                      AND:

                      1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
                            VIDHANA SOUDHA POLICE
                            BY C.O.D POLICE,
                            CARLTON HOUSE,
                            BENGALURU-560 001
                            REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                             -2-
                                         NC: 2026:KHC:7089
                                  CRL.P No. 16331 of 2025


HC-KAR



     HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
     BENGALURU - 560 001

2.   SRI. P.K.BABU RAO,
     AGED MAJOR,
     SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
     DEPARTMENT OF
     PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
     (SERVICE RULES),
     DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARIAT,
     KARNATAKA VIDHANASOUDHA,
     BENGALURU - 560 001


                                           ...RESPONDENTS


(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)

      THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) BY
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE
CHARGE SHEET IN SPL.CC.NO.25/2011, FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 120(B), 109, 119, 166, 409, 418, 420 OF IPC, U/S
13(1)(d) AND 13(2) OF P.C. ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF
HONBLE LXXVII CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPECIAL COURT FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, AT
BENGALURU (CCH-78).


      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                  -3-
                                                NC: 2026:KHC:7089
                                         CRL.P No. 16331 of 2025


HC-KAR




CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA


                           ORAL ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court, seeking the

following prayer:

"WHEREFORE, the petitioners humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the entire charge- sheet in Spl.C.C.No-25/2011 for the alleged offences 120(B), 109, 119, 166, 409, 418 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, now pending on the files of Hon'ble LXXVII City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act at Bengaluru (CCH-78), in the interest of justice. "

2. Heard the learned counsel, Sri. Hemanth Kumar K.,

appearing for the petitioners, Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned

Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the

material on record.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would

submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment

rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

Crl.P.No.8126/2025 disposed on 19.09.2025, wherein it has

held as follows:

" Petitioner who is accused No.11 is seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in

NC: 2026:KHC:7089

HC-KAR

Spl.C.C.No.25/2011 (C.C.No.5540/2008) for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 109, 119, 166, 409, 418 and 420 of IPC.

2. The gist of the prosecution case is as under:

A crime was registered regarding irregularities in the award of marks in the examination conducted by the Karnataka Public Service Commission in 1998 for selection of Gazetted Officers to Group 'A' and 'B' posts. Pursuant to the registration of the crime, the Investigating Officer laid a charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 109, 119, 166, 409, 418 and 420 of the IPC. The prosecution alleges that the Chief Examiner, in collusion with the Examiner his cousin indulged in malpractice by awarding higher marks to a select group of candidates. It is further alleged that the petitioner, then serving as an Assistant Treasury Officer in the Treasury Department and an aspirant in the said examination, was a beneficiary and had also connived with the Chief Examiner and the Examiner to secure higher marks. On these allegations, the charge sheet was filed and proceedings are pending against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contends that the filing of the charge sheet during the petitioner's tenure as a government servant is hit by the statutory bar under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., and, in the absence of sanction, the proceedings stand vitiated insofar as the petitioner is concerned. On merits, it is submitted that, after registration of the crime, a sub-committee was constituted to enquire into the allegations. Upon evaluating the material on record, the committee concluded that the petitioner had no role in the malpractice. It further found that the petitioner was not a beneficiary, as he was not ultimately selected on the basis of the marks awarded in the examination. It is also urged that the petitioner had no connection whatsoever with Prof. K.S. Shivanna or A.K. Monnappa, the then Secretary. Counsel submits that the petitioner, for no fault of his, has been subjected to the stigma of a criminal prosecution, causing humiliation within the department.

The continuation of the proceedings, despite lack of material, is a clear abuse of process, and indulgence is

NC: 2026:KHC:7089

HC-KAR

sought to give a quietus to an incident dating back to 1998, as the petitioner continues to suffer indignity even after 26 years.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional SPP strongly opposes the grant of any relief to the petitioner, contending that there is adequate material to prosecute him, and hence this is not a fit case for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

5. Having considered the submissions of both sides, this Court has carefully examined the charge-sheet materials as well as the additional documents produced by the petitioner.

6. The enquiry report placed at Annexure-C assumes significance in deciding the petitioner's fate in the present proceedings. It is therefore appropriate to refer to the relevant observations of the sub-committee insofar as the petitioner is concerned. Paragraph 28 of the report is particularly decisive and is extracted below:

"28. The theory of conspiracy between these officers, Prof. K.S.Shivanna, Shri.A.K.Monappa and Shri K.Rameshwarappa, also does not explain Prof. K.S.Shivanna having allotted higher marks to other six candidates against whom action has been taken by the Commission. The sub-commission report admits this shortcoming by stating that "In case of Smt.Leela M.ShriPonappa, Shri Naveen P.C, Shri Subash K.G, Shri.Pratap K.R and Shri. Caveriappa, prima facie, Committee could not establish nexus between a Dr.K.S.Shivanna, Secretary A.K.Monappa and these six candidates but irresistible inference leads to show that they have indulged in malpractice (why and how Prof. K.S.Shivanna picks up all the four coded answer scripts of these six candidates only and awards erroneous marks over and above the marks)". The sub-committee has therefore clearly admitted that the conspiracy theory propounded by its does not provide a satisfactory explanation for all the irregularities on record."

(Emphasis Supplied)

NC: 2026:KHC:7089

HC-KAR

7. This Court also deems it fit to extract the relevant portion of the findings of the sub-committee. Para 17(2) would be relevant. The same reads as under:

"(2) in the case if Smt. Leela M, Sri. Ponnappa, Sri. Naveen, Sri.Subhash K.G, Sri.Pratap K.R and Sri.Cauverappa, the prima facie committee could not establish a nexus between Dr.K.S.Shivanna, Secretary Sri A.K.Mounappa and these candidates but irresistible interference leads to show they have indulged in mal practice (why and how Prof. Shivanna picks up all the 4 coded answer of these candidates only, and awarded enormous marks over and above the examiners marks for scripts which obviously do not merit such marks.) therefore the committee recommends that their candidate also may be cancelled after due process of equity."

8. On a careful perusal of the extracted findings of the Sub-committee, it emerges that the Committee was unable to establish any nexus between the petitioner and the then Secretary, Sri A.K. Monnappa. Nevertheless, the Committee proceeded to opine that the petitioner, along with a few others, had allegedly indulged in malpractice and had secured marks higher than what they legitimately deserved.

9. A close reading of the Sub-committee's observations reveals one significant aspect: the material against the petitioner is, at best, doubtful. The report does not attribute to him any clear or cogent role in the alleged irregularities, nor does it indicate any concrete evidence of conspiracy with the Chief Examiner or the Examiner. Apart from these tentative findings, the charge-sheet materials do not provide any independent or additional evidence that would justify putting the petitioner to trial. The prosecution case, therefore, rests only on suspicion rather than proof capable of establishing the petitioner's culpability.

10. The next aspect that requires examination is the nature of the offences for which the petitioner has been charge-sheeted, namely, Sections 120-B, 109, 119, 166, 409, 418 and 420 of the IPC. The charge-sheet

NC: 2026:KHC:7089

HC-KAR

material itself discloses that the petitioner was not ultimately selected for appointment on the strength of the allegedly inflated marks. Thus, even assuming that certain marks were irregularly awarded, they did not culminate in any tangible benefit or advantage to the petitioner.

11. To constitute an offence under Section 420 of the IPC, it is well settled that there must be a clear fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception, which must induce a person so deceived to part with property or to do or omit to do something resulting in wrongful gain to the accused or wrongful loss to another. In the present case, the alleged escalation of marks did not enable the petitioner either to qualify in the examination or to secure employment to the post for which he had applied. Consequently, even if the charge-sheet allegations are taken at their face value, the element of fraudulent inducement leading to a valuable security or wrongful gain is conspicuously absent. Mere suspicion of deception or dishonesty, without proof of consequential gain or loss, would not amount to an offence under Section 420 IPC.

12. Since the essential ingredients of Section 420 are not made out against the petitioner, and having regard to the categorical observations of the fact-finding Committee, which found no material establishing any nexus between the petitioner and the Chief Examiner or the Examiner, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has been unnecessarily subjected to a criminal prosecution for nearly twenty-six years. The petitioner, now aged about 56 years, has borne the brunt of this stigma and humiliation for more than two and a half decades, despite the absence of convincing material warranting his prosecution. The interests of justice, therefore, demand that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be exercised to put an end to this prolonged ordeal.

13. Upon a comprehensive evaluation of the charge-sheet and the material placed on record, this Court is satisfied that there exists no reasonable prospect of conviction. The petitioner has already endured the rigours of criminal proceedings for close to twenty-six years. To compel him to face a full-fledged trial, in the

NC: 2026:KHC:7089

HC-KAR

face of such frail and unsubstantiated material, would amount to an abuse of the process of law and a perpetuation of unnecessary harassment. In order to prevent further misuse of the judicial process and to secure the ends of justice, this Court finds it a fit case to invoke its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed;

(ii) The proceedings pending in Spl.C.C.No.25/2011 (C.C.No.5540/2008) on the file of the learned 77th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 109, 119, 166, 409, 418 and 420 of IPC, insofar as petitioner is concerned, are hereby quashed."

In the light of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench

of this Court (supra) and for the reasons aforementioned, the

following:

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

(ii) Proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.25/2011 pending before

the LXXVII City Civil and Sessions Judge and

Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act at

NC: 2026:KHC:7089

HC-KAR

Bengaluru (CCH-78), stand quashed, qua these

petitioners.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35 CT-SG