Kaveriyappa N T vs The State Of Karnataka By
2026 Latest Caselaw 1943 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Kaveriyappa N T vs The State Of Karnataka By on 6 March, 2026

                                                 -1-
                                                              NC: 2026:KHC:13872
                                                        CRL.P No. 1716 of 2026


                      HC-KAR



                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                               DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
                                              BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
                                CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1716 OF 2026

                      BETWEEN:

                      KAVERIYAPPA N.T
                      AGED ABOUT 38 YRS (AS PER C.S)
                      CURRENTLY AGED 53 YRS
                      S/O, LATE N.K THIMMAIAH
                      R/AT, NO.100, ANDHAGAVI POST
                      SUNTIKOPPA HOBLI, SOMWARPET
                      TALUK, KODAGU - 571 236
                      PRESENTLY, R/AT, NO.187
                      1ST STAGE, 4TH MAIN
                      BEML LAYOUT, BASVESHWARANAGAR
                      BENGALURU - 570 079.

                                                                   ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI M.R. CHINNASWAMY MANOHAR, ADV.)
                      AND:
Digitally signed by
NAGARAJA B M
Location: HIGH        1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                   VIDHANA SOUDHA P.S
                            INVESTIGATION BY C.I.D
                            (FORMERLY KNOWN AS C.O.D)
                            POLICE, REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC
                            PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX
                            BENGALURU - 560 001.

                      2.    P.K. BABU RAO,
                            UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
                            DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
                            ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
                            (SERVICE RULES), GOVERNMENT OF
                            KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT
                             -2-
                                          NC: 2026:KHC:13872
                                   CRL.P No. 1716 of 2026


HC-KAR



    VIDHANA SOUDHA
    BENGALURU - 560 001.

                                             ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.R. PATIL, HCGP)
     THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS)
PRAYING PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN SPL.C.C.NO.25/2011 (CRIME
NO.28/2004)     (C.C.NO.5540/2008)     REGISTERED     BY
VIDHANASOUDHA P.S (INVESTIGATION BY CID), PENDING
BEFORE THE HONBLE LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-78) FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 120(B), 109, 119, 116, 409,
418 AND 420 OF IPC AND SECTION 13(1)(d) R/W 13(2) OF
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

                      ORAL ORDER

The petitioner, who is accused No.12, is seeking

quashing of the proceedings pending in

Spl.C.C.No.25/2011 (Crime No.28/2004)

(C.C.No.5540/2008) registered by Vidhanasoudha Police

Station pending on the file of the LXXVII Additional City

Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, at Bengaluru

(CCH-78) for the offences punishable under Sections

120(B), 109, 119, 166, 409, 418 and 420 of IPC and

NC: 2026:KHC:13872

HC-KAR

Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act.

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 and

Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act. 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

NC: 2026:KHC:13872

HC-KAR

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

NC: 2026:KHC:13872

HC-KAR

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 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

NC: 2026:KHC:13872

HC-KAR

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)

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

NC: 2026:KHC:13872

HC-KAR

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

NC: 2026:KHC:13872

HC-KAR

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

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

NC: 2026:KHC:13872

HC-KAR

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

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13872

HC-KAR

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 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

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13872

HC-KAR

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 (Crime No.28/2004) (C.C.No.5540/2008) on the file of the LXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-78) for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 109, 119, 166, 409, 418 and 420 of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 insofar as petitioner is concerned, are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 18