[Cites 26, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Anil vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1201
CRL.P No. 201065 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201065 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. ANIL S/O BABURAO SINDAGI,
AGE : 57 YEARS, OCC : TAXI DRIVER,
R/O # 32 B, NEERAPAM HOUSING SOCIETY
NEW RTO OFFICE ROAD, VIJAPUR ROAD
SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA - 413004
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJESH DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA THROUGH ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION,
DATTATRAYA KALABURAGI
UDAGI
Location: HIGH NOW REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL SPP,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH - 585103.
2. SMT. SHILPA W/O CHANNAVEER CHAKKI
AGE : 28 YEARS,
OCC: LECTURER IN SHARANBASAV UNIVERISTY,
R/O VAKKELGERA, MOMINPURA, NEHRU GUNJ
KALABURAGI- 585103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M., SPL.PP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1201
CRL.P No. 201065 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), U/SEC.
528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND
QUASH THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED
09.05.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE KALABURAGI IN SPL. KCOCA 01/2024
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 409, 420, 120(B), 201,
109, 114, 36, 37, 34 & U/S 3(1)(ii)(2)(3)(4) OF KCOCA ACT
2000., NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KALABURAGI
(ARISING OUT CRIME NO. 160/2023 OF ASHOK NAGAR POLICE
STATION) / IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.18
IS CONCERNED (AS PER CHARGE SHEET) & CONSEQUENTLY
QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED ARE CONCERNED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 proceedings
against the petitioner/accused No.18 in Spl.C.KCOCA
No.1/2024, arising out of Crime No.160/2023, registered
by Ashok Nagar Police, Kalaburagi, for the offences
punishable under sections 409, 420, 120(B), 201, 109,
114, 36 and 37 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1201
HC-KAR
3(1)(ii)(2)(3)(4) of KCOCA Act, 2000, pending on the file
of Prl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi.
2. The abridged facts of the case are that,
respondent No.2 lodged the complaint before respondent
No.1-Police on 28.10.2023, alleging that she is working as
Assistant Lecturer in Sharanabasava University,
Vidyanagar, Kalaburagi and was appointed as a Supervisor
for the examination conducted by the Karnataka
Examination Authority for the recruitment of FDA/SDA. It
is further alleged that on the date of examination i.e.,
28.02.2023 at about 11:30 a.m., when the examination
was going on, the Deputy Director of KEA came along with
Police to the examination center and taken custody of one
Trimurti/accused No.1 and taken him outside the Exam
Hall for interrogation and recovered Bluetooth device from
him.
3. On enquiry, he revealed that his brother
Ambareesh-accused No.2 was sitting outside the
examination center in the car and answering the questions
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1201
HC-KAR
and further revealed that one R.D.Patil/accused No.3 and
others are helping him in the examination to use the
Bluetooth device to write the examination and thereby to
get Government jobs. Accordingly, respondent No.2
lodged the complaint before respondent No.1 on
28.10.2023 and on the strength of the said complaint,
respondent No.1-Police registered FIR in Crime
No.160/2023 dated 28.10.2023 for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 120B, 109, 114, 36, 37
and 34 of IPC and Section 66(D) of Information
Technology Act, 2000 (for short, 'I.T.Act') against
Trimurti/accused No.1, Ambrish/accused No.2 and
R.D.Patil/accused No.3.
4. During the course of investigation, it was
revealed that, apart from these three accused persons, 17
other persons were involved in the examination
malpractice forming a syndicate between them. Hence,
respondent No.1-Police invoked the provisions of KCOCA
Act, apart from the provisions of IPC and laid the charge
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1201
HC-KAR
sheet against twenty persons by arraying this petitioner as
accused No.18 for the offences punishable under Sections
409, 420, 120(B), 201, 109, 114, 36 and 37 r/w Section
34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(ii)(2)(3)(4) of KCOCA Act.
5. In the charge sheet, accusation made against
this petitioner is that he is a member of the Syndicate and
accused No.3/R.D. Patil, was known this petitioner prior to
the incident. It was alleged that, after the incident,
accused No.3 escaped from Jevargi taluk and went to
Solapur and stayed in the house of this petitioner. Later,
respondent No.1 arrested accused No.3 from the house of
this petitioner on 10.11.2023.
6. Aggrieved by the proceedings against this
petitioner, he filed this petition to quash the proceedings.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Special PP for respondent No.1. Though notice is
served to respondent No.2, she remained absent.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1201
HC-KAR
8. Apart from urging several contentions, learned
counsel for the petitioner primarily contented that the
petitioner being accused No.18, is implicated in the crime
only based on the voluntary statement of accused No.3.
However, on perusal of the voluntary statement of
accused No.3, he has categorically stated that he had not
disclosed the commission of the offences with this
petitioner while he obtaining shelter in the house of this
petitioner. Hence, by emphasizing on the voluntary
statement of accused No.3, learned counsel vehemently
contended that on perusal of the entire charge sheet
materials including the voluntary statement of accused
No.3, the provisions of KCOCA and Section 109 of IPC do
not attract against this petitioner.
9. He also contented that apart from the voluntary
statement, absolutely no other materials placed in the
entire charge sheet against this petitioner. According to
him, respondent No.1-Police also failed to place the
documents pertaining to the house of this petitioner,
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1201
HC-KAR
where accused No.3 allegedly took shelter after the
incident. In such circumstances, he prays to allow the
petition.
10. Per contra, learned Special Counsel for
respondent No.1 contented that this petitioner being the
member of the syndicate, actively participated in the
incident. According to him, by knowing fully that accused
No.3 having participated in the examination malpractice,
this petitioner gave shelter to him to escape from the
clutches of the Police. In such circumstances, the offence
under Section 3(1)(ii)(2)(3)(4) of KCOCA Act is applicable
against this petitioner. He also contended that, in the
voluntary statement of accused No.3 it is stated that this
petitioner was known to him prior to the incident. In such
circumstances, he prays to dismiss the petition.
11. I have given my anxious consideration both on
the submission made by the learned counsel for the
respective parties and the documents available on record.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1201
HC-KAR
12. Before delving into the merits of the case, it is
appropriate to peruse Section 3(1)(ii)(2)(3)(4) of KCOCA
Act, which reads as under:
3. Punishment for organized crime -
(1) whoever commits an organized crime shall, -
(i) xxxx
(ii) In any other case, be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than five years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to
fine, which shall not be less than five lakh
rupees.
(2) Whoever conspires or attempts to commit or
advocates, abets or knowingly facilitates the
commission of an organized crime or any act
preparatory to organized crime, shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than five years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a
fine, which shall not be less than five lakh rupees.
(3) Whoever harbors or conceals or attempts to
harbor or conceal, any member of an organized
crime syndicate shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
five years but which may extend to imprisonment for
life, and shall also be liable to a fine, which shall not
be less than five lakh rupees.
(4) Any person who is a member of an organized
crime syndicate shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
five years but which may extend to imprisonment for
life and shall also be liable to a fine which shall not
be less than five lakh rupees.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1201
HC-KAR
13. Further Section 2(f) defines as "Organized
crime syndicate", means a group of two or more persons
who acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate or
gang, indulge in activities of organized crime;
14. On careful reading of the above provisions, it is
clear that, in order to punish an accused under Section 3
of the KCOCA Act, a person must be a member of
syndicate by or on behalf of a member of organized crime
syndicate, he has do the act as provided in Section 3(3) to
harbor or conceal any attempt to harbor or conceal any
member of an organized crime syndicate.
15. On careful perusal of the accusation in the
charge-sheet column No.17, the same depicts that, after
the incident, accused No.3 being one of the prime accused
in the case, escaped from Jevargi to Solapur. He was
escaped in the car of his brother/Mahantesh Patil along
with accused No.10 till Akkalkota toll i.e., border of
Karnataka-Maharashtra. Thereafter, he went to Solapur
and there to the house of this petitioner to take shelter.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1201
HC-KAR
16. However, on perusal of voluntary statement of
accused No.3-R.D.Patil, he has categorically stated as
under:
"£Á£ÀÄ CPÀÌ®PÉÆÃmÉ ºÀwÛgÀ EgÀĪÀ mÉÆÃ¯ï £ÁPÁzÀ ºÀwÛgÀ ¸Àé®à zÀÆgÀzÀ°è
¤°è¹ ªÀÄvÉÛà d¸ïÖ-qÉʹ֪¤
À UÉ PÁ¼ï ªÀiÁrw½¹zÀÄÝ, DvÀ£ÀÄ
JzÀÄgÀÄUÀq¬É ÄAzÀ §gÀĪÁUÀ ¯ÉÊmï D£ï ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀÄÝ, ¯ÉÊmï
D£ï §UÉÎ w½¸ÀĪÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ gÀ»ÃªÀiï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀĢåï EªÀjUÉ
w½¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¸Àé®à ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ E£ÉÆêÁ PÁgÀzÀ°è ºÉÆÃV
¸ÉÆïÁè¥ÀÆgÀz° À è F ªÉÆÃzÀ®Ä ¥ÀjavÀ£ÁzÀ C¤Ã¯ï vÀAzÉ ¨Á§ÄgÁªÀ
¹AzsVÀ EªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV D±ÀA æ iÀÄ ¥ÀqzÉ ÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. DzÀgÉ F
PÉøï DVgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀiÁ»w ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
17. Hence, on careful reading of the voluntary
statement of accused No.3, he neither informed the
commission of this incident of malpractice to this petitioner
nor this petitioner was aware of the same. Admittedly, this
petitioner was residing in Solapur and was totally unaware
about the incident.
18. Further, on perusal of the entire charge-sheet
materials, except the above voluntary statement, no other
iota of evidence is placed by respondent No.1-Police
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1201
HC-KAR
against this petitioner to substantiate that he acted as a
member of the organized syndicate.
19. Section 109 of IPC reads as under:
"109. Punishment of abetment if the act
abetted is committed in consequence and
where no express provision is made for its
punishment.--
Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act
abetted is committed in consequence of the
abetment, and no express provision is made by this
Code for the punishment of such abetment, be
punished with the punishment provided for the
offence."
20. In the instant case, as discussed supra, this
petitioner neither instigated nor participated or
intentionally aided accused No.3 either to commit the
offence or to abscond from the clutches of the police.
21. It is settled position of law that solely based on
the voluntary statement of co-accused, other accused
cannot be implicated unless if there is any other
corroborative piece of evidence. In such circumstances, in
my considered view, even if the entire allegations in the
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1201
HC-KAR
charge-sheet materials taken on its face value, no offences
have been made out against this petitioner/accused No.18.
22. It is now well settled that continuation of
criminal proceedings against any person on the basis of a
frivolous or vexatious complaint is something very serious.
This would tarnish the image of the person against whom
false, frivolous and vexatious allegations are leveled. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohammad Wajid v.
State of U.P. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951,
held that whenever an accused comes before the Court
invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
constitution to get the FIR or criminal proceedings
quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings
are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such
circumstance, Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with
care and a little more closely. It will not be just enough for
the Court to look into the averments made in the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1201
HC-KAR
FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence are disclosed or not. On the other hand,
the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending
circumstance emerging from the record of the case over
and above the averments and, if need be, with due care
and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The
Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C or Article 226 of Constitution need not restrict itself
only to the stage of a case, but is empowered to take into
a count the overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials
collected in the course of investigation.
23. I am of the considered view that the
continuation of proceedings against this petitioner/accused
No.18 is abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, I proceed
to pass the following:
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1201
HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings against the
petitioner/accused No.18 in Spl.C.KCOCA
No.1/2024, arising out of Crime
No.160/2023, registered by Ashok Nagar
Police, Kalaburagi, for the offences
punishable under sections 409, 420,
120(B), 201, 109, 114, 36 and 37 r/w
Section 34 of IPC and Section
3(1)(ii)(2)(3)(4) of KCOCA Act, 2000,
pending on the file of Prl. Dist. and
Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, is hereby
quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
SDU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 19
CT: PR
