Sri R M Ajay v. State of Karnataka - Criminal Petition

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 14, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

Sri R M Ajay vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 March, 2026

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

1

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
                                                   R
                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

          CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5918/2024

BETWEEN:

SRI. R.M. AJAY,
S/O. R.B. MOHAN REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
NOW WORKING AS POLICE INSPECTOR,
STATE INTELLIGENCE, BENGALURU.

R/AT NO.328/A,
9TH 'D' MAIN ROAD, HRBR LAYOUT,
1ST BLOCK, KALYAN NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560043. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADVOCATE - [THROUGH V.C.])

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
   

   BY ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU,
   NOW LOKAYUKTA PS,
   M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
   REP. BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
   HIGH COURT BUILDING,
   DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
   BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
   

   CRIME-I, CITY CRIME BRANCH,
   BENGALURU-560009.
   2

3. SRI. RAJENDRA D.S.,
   

   DY. S.P.ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU,
   NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
   RACE COURSE ROAD,
   BENGALURU-560001.
   ... RESPONDENTS

    (BY SRI. B.B.PATIL, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR R1;
              SRI. TEJAS, HCGP FOR R2;
   

   NOTICE ISSUED TO R3 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

   THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS UNDER SECTION 482 OF
   CR.P.C, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.17/2020
   REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENTS AS AGAINST THE
   PETITIONER ARRAIGNING HIM AS ACCUSED NO.2 FOR THE
   OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 7A, 13(1)(a) R/W
   13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988, PENDING
   BEFORE THE LEARNED XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
   SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-24) AND TO QUASH
   THE IMPUGNED CHARGE SHEET DATED 21.06.2025 FILED BY
   THE RESPONDENT NO.1/POLICE IN CR.NO.17/2020 FOR THE
   OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7(a) OF PREVENTION
   OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 WHEREIN THE PETITIONER HEREIN
   HAS BEEN ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO.2 IN
   SPL.CC.NO.1602/2025, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED
   XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU
   (CCH-24) (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE -'H') AND ETC.

   THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
   RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 06.03.2026 THIS DAY, THE COURT
   PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
3

                            CAV ORDER

     This petition is filed under [Section 482](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1679850/) of Cr.P.C. praying

to grant the following reliefs:

     " a) Quash the FIR in Crime No.17/2020 registered by
     the respondents as against the petitioner arraigning
     him as accused No.2 for the offences punishable under
     Sections 7A, [13(1)(a)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/17098/) read with Section 13(2) of the
     Prevention of Corruption Act, 19881 pending before
     the learned XXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge
     at Bengaluru (CCH-24( and
     aa)     Quash    the   impugned      charge   sheet   dated
     21.06.2025 filed by respondent No.1/Police in Crime
     No.17/2020 for the offences punishable under [Section
     7(a)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/83604231/) of PC Act, wherein the petitioner herein has been
     arraigned as accused No.2 in Spl. CC No.1602/2025
     pending on the file of learned XXIII Addl. City Civil &
     Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-24) (Produced as
     Annexure-H).
     b) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble
     Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the
     case, in the interest of justice."

1
For short, ' PC Act '
4

  2.    The       factual      matrix     of   the     case    of     the

respondent/Lokayukta is that they have registered the FIR on

21.05.2020 in Crime No.17/2020 for the offences punishable

under Sections 7(A), 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the PC

Act against the petitioner, who has been arraigned as accused

No.2. This petition was filed to quash the FIR, which is marked

as Annexure-A. The certified copy of the complaint in Crime

No.17/2020 is produced as Annexure-B, so also the certified

copy of the order sheet in Crime No.17/2020 is produced as

Annexure-C.

  3.    The petitioner was working as Police Inspector,

Central Crime Branch (CCB), Bengaluru City in the Economic

Offences Wing. On 30.03.2020, the first information was filed

before Banaswadi PS as against one Surush and others alleging

the commission of offence under Section 420 of IPC in regard to

manufacture of N-95 Mask in their lab with fake seal and

certifications to provide standardization for the said mask.

Pursuant to the said first information, a case in Crime

No.164/2020 was registered by Banaswadi PS and the same was
5

transferred to CCB by the order passed by the Commissioner of

Police, Bengaluru City. It is the case of the prosecution that one

Sri. Guruprasad-Police Inspector was appointed as Investigating

Officer of Crime No.164/2020 and investigation was taken up.

When such being the case, the Joint Commissioner of Police,

Crime-I, Head of the Central Crime Branch, addressed a letter to

the respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioner and one

Sri.Prabhu Shankar, ACP, CCB have obtained illegal gratification

to close the case in Crime No.164/2020. Based on the same,

respondent No.2 herein recorded a statement on 12.05.2020

and started enquiry into the matter. Based on the said alleged

statement made by Sri. Shaji George on 12.05.2020, respondent

No.2 addressed a letter to respondent No.3 to take action

against the petitioner and Sri. Prabhu Shankar, ACP, CCB.

Pursuant to the same, the Cottonpet PS based on the said

alleged statement made before the respondent No.2 and on the

basis of communication made by the respondent No.2, have

registered an FIR against the petitioner in Crime No.63/2020

arraigning him as an accused for the offences punishable under

Section 384 read with Section 34 of IPC. A copy of FIR and
6

complaint in Crime No.63/2020 are produced as Annexures-D

and E. However, based on the communication made by

respondent No.2 to the respondent No.3 i.e. Deputy

Superintendent of Police, ACB submitted a request to the learned

XXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City

requesting the Court to permit him to carryout investigation in

respect of the aforementioned offences. Respondent No.1/Police,

in respect of the same incident and factual matrix, has

registered the case in Crime No.17/2020 dated 21.05.2020

invoking the provisions for the offences punishable under the [PC

Act](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1331755/). It is also the case of the prosecution that Shaji George,

who is alleged to have stated that to assist the accused Surush

in Crime No.164/2020, he approached one Sri. Amjad. The said

Shaji George contacted the petitioner herein who promised that

he would coordinate with accused No.1/ACP-Prabhu Shankar and

requested for an amount of Rs.25 lakhs to drop him from the

said case. That on 30.03.2020 and 31.03.2020, the said Amjad

deposited Rs.5,00,000/- each and on 7.4.2020, the said Surush

deposited an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the account of Shaji

George. It is alleged that between 31.03.2020 and 9.4.2020,
7

the said amount was handed over to the petitioner/accused No.2

on various dates.

   4.    It is contended that with regard to the same

allegations, Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the

petitioner herein during the course of his employment and

pursuant to the same, charge was framed and the articles of

charge dated 10.07.2020 is produced as Annexure-F. In

Departmental Enquiry, the petitioner was exonerated of all the

charges leveled against him and the said Shaji George has

stated that he is unaware of Kannada Language and not aware

of the contents of Kannada Language. The statement of Surush

stating that the transaction with Amjad pertains to sale of car

and the fact that the prosecution witnesses 2 to 6 do not state

anything about the petitioner being involved in acceptance of

illegal gratification.

   5.    The Government of Karnataka vide Notification dated

16.05.2024 has exonerated the petitioner herein and confirmed

the findings of the Departmental Enquiry as per Annexure-G. It

is also contended that accused No.1 had approached this Court
8

seeking to quash the proceedings. This Court vide order dated

8.9.2021 in Crl.P.No.2470/2020, quashed the FIR as against

accused No.1. A copy of the order dated 8.9.2021 passed in

Crl.P.No.2470/2020 is produced as Annexure-H. The petitioner

being aggrieved by continuation of investigation in Crime

No.17/2020 was constrained to seek alternative and efficacious

remedy by way of the present petition seeking to quash the

impugned FIR and investigation. In the meanwhile, the

Investigating Officer has concluded the investigation and filed

charge sheet. Hence, the petitioner got amended the petition by

inserting paragraph-13A stating that the police have filed final

report as against the petitioner herein on 21.06.2025 alleging

the commission of offences under Section 7A of the PC Act and

this petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2. Aggrieved by the

same, the petitioner got amended the petition praying this Court

to quash the proceedings including the FIR and charge sheet.

  6.   Learned counsel Sri. Prasanna Kumar P appearing for

the petitioner, in his arguments, would vehemently contend that

the petitioner has not committed any offence and in the absence
9

of any material to connect the petitioner, the question of

continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is

unsustainable in the eye of law. The counsel with vehemence

would contend that the FIR can be registered based on either

complaint as defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

as pursuant to a cognizable offence in accordance with [Section

154](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1980578/) of Cr.P.C. In the present case, the basis for registration of

FIR in Crime No.17/2020 is neither a complaint under [Section

200](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/444619/) of Cr.P.C. nor as per the requirements of Section 154 of

Cr.P.C. and no first information or complaint is given to the

respondent No.1/Police in connection with the commission of a

cognizable offence, however, the Dy.SP, ACB has made a

request for commencing the investigation as against the

petitioner and others to the Court. In the present case, Dy.SP,

ACB is a person making the request to the learned Sessions

Judge seeking permission to investigate the matter and the very

same person has registered the FIR as against the petitioner

acting as Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station. There is no any

material for having committed the cognizable offence. The very

registration of Crime No.17/2020 as against this petitioner is
10

without any complaint with an intention of malafides. The

allegation made in Crime No.63/2020 and the allegation made in

the Crime No.17/2020 is one and the same, which is

impermissible in law. It is also contended that in order to invoke

the provisions of Section 7 of the PC Act, the existence of

demand and acceptance is sine-qua-non and the same is missing

in the case on hand. However, strangely on the very same facts

and allegations, subsequent FIR in Crime No.17/2020 has been

registered by the respondent No.1/Police, which is opposed to

law and the ingredients of offences under the PC Act is missing

and therefore, continuation of two proceedings against the

petitioner is nothing but harassment, and second FIR is

impermissible.

   7.     It is contended that the first information or the

alleged statement of Shaji Goeorge was recorded on

12.05.2020, which is after a lapse of more than 1 ½ months and

the same itself would indicate that the alleged statement of Shaji

George is an afterthought and leveled against the petitioner with

a sole intention to put him at inconvenience. It is contended
11

that the said delay in lodging the first information on 21.05.2020

i.e., ten days after recording the said statement of Shaji George

would itself create a serious doubt in the case of the prosecution

and indicates that registration of 2nd FIR is nothing but an

afterthought.

    8.      Having filed charge sheet, additional ground is

invoked in paragraph-24(a) to (d) of this petition that a perusal

of the entire charge sheet material, it is forthcoming that all the

statements and documents pursuant to the said investigation

have been obtained in the year 2020 and prior to September

1. This Court vide order dated 8.9.2021 in

Crl.P.No.2470/2020 already quashed the proceedings in respect

of accused No.1 having perused all the materials. Hence, the

continuation of proceedings against this petitioner is erroneous

and the same requires to be quashed.

    9.     Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits

that this petitioner is not the Investigating Officer in Crime

No.164/2020 nor the part of investigation team, even not part of

the raiding group of officers and so also not cited as witness in
12

that case. When such being the case, recording the statement

of Shaji George and Amjad is nothing but false implication of this

petitioner. Hence, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings

against the petitioner, in view of this Court earlier had quashed

the case against the accused No.1 and apart from that, in

Departmental Enquiry, the present petitioner was exonerated.

The respondent/Police are relying on the alleged seizure of

cheques, screen shots of chattings, CCTV footages etc., which

pertains to Crime No.63/2020 of Cottonpet PS. This would run

contrary to the case of the 1st respondent/police that the

aforesaid case is independent and is not a second FIR arising out

of Crime No.63/2020 of Cottonpet PS.

     10. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his

arguments would vehemently contend that the present case is

liable to be dropped in view of observations made by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Ashu Surendranath Tiwari Vs.

Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & Another2. The

Departmental Enquiry is also based on the statement of Shaji

2
(2020) 9 SCC 636
13

George Thomas, who has been examined as PW1 and PW7-

Surush and all these materials were got marked and only upon

detail examination of the case, the petitioner was exonerated

and hence, the charge sheet leveled against the petitioner is

liable to be dismissed.

  11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to

the notice of this Court the observation made at paragraph-43 of

the order dated 8.9.2021 in Crl.P.2470/2020, wherein this Court

was pleased to note that the subsequent case registered by

ACB/respondent was to overcome the interim order granted by

this Court pertaining to Crime Nos.63 and 64 of 2020 of

Cottonpet PS and the same is not permissible. The jurisdictional

police have filed 'B' final report in respect of Crime No.63/2020

of Cottonpet PS indicating no involvement of the petitioner. The

charge sheet filed by the respondent/Police relies upon the

seizures/recoveries of cheques/CCTV footages etc. made in

Crime No.63/2020 of Cottonpet PS and in view of filing of the

charge sheet, the same could not be continued.
14

  12. Per     contra,    learned    special    counsel    for

respondent/Lokayukta would submit that the Lokayukta Police

have investigated the matter and filed charge sheet. Learned

counsel brought to the notice of this Court to Volume-2, page-

252 and paragraph-3 of the charge sheet and contend that one

Mukesh has made statement on 22.05.2020, wherein he had

categorically stated that he was having an acquaintance with this

petitioner and he called the present petitioner to a particular

phone number and when he requested to help him in the case

registered against Surush, the petitioner informed him that as it

is a serious case, the ACP/accused No.1 is demanding more

amount of Rs.25 lakhs and the same was informed to Amjad and

he requested him to reduce the amount and again he called him

to the Inspector and the present petitioner informed him that he

had discussed with accused No.1 and the same is settled for an

amount of Rs.15 lakhs. In terms of the same, he informed the

same to Amjad, who in turn, informed him that he is going to

transfer the amount to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs and told him to

withdraw the same and give the same to the present petitioner.

Accordingly, the Manager of Amjad by name Shine Mukund
15

transferred to his Account No.409000487486, Ratnakar Bank

Limited (RBL), Koramangal Branch, an amount of Rs.2 lakh on

30.03.2020, Rs.1 lakh each three times to the tune of Rs.5 lakh;

and on 31.03.2020, Rs.2 lakh twices and Rs.1 lakh, in total Rs.5

lakhs and also on 7.4.2020, Surush transferred the amount to

his account to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs, in all Rs.15 lakhs and the

said amount was transferred from the account of Surush and

Amjad in order to hand over the same to the present petitioner.

Accordingly, he handed over the same to the present petitioner

and on receipt of the said amount of Rs.15 lakhs, the present

petitioner confirmed the same through WhatsApp. Learned

counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that the Court

has to take note of the foundational facts of the case and apart

from that, the statement of one Somashekar was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The said Somashekhar has categorically

made statement before the Court on 3.3.2021 that the present

petitioner instructed him to get the amount drawn from the bank

and accordingly, the present petitioner gave him one cheque for

Rs.2,50,000/- and instructed him to meet the Lady Bank

Manager, thereafter, draw the money and handover the same to
16

the present petitioner. Accordingly, he met the Bank Manager

and drew the money and handed over the same to the present

petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent/Lokayukta would

contend that this Court has to consider the statement of Mukesh

as well as Somashekar, who made the statement before the

learned Magistrate for having handed over the amount to the

present petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that there is

a demand and acceptance, which requires to be proved in the

trial, so also digital evidence is available, which is collected and

the same is also to be proved; and the accused can get the

chance of rebutting the same.

     13. Learned counsel would also contend that the mobile

phone of the present petitioner was seized by drawing mahazar,

which clearly discloses the conversation between Shaji George

and the present petitioner, which reflects in the seizure mahazar

with regard to demand and making of payment in RBL Bank

Account No. 409000487486, so also the conversation between

Shaji George and Sangeetha Vijaykrishnan, Bank Manager with

regard to the transactions dated 31.03.2020, 1.4.2020,
17

2.4.2020, 7.4.2020, 9.4.2020, 12.04.2020 and 5.5.2020 for

having made payment. Learned counsel also brought to the

notice of this Court the statement of Sangeetha Vijaykrishnan,

Bank Manager and also the seizure of pendrive for having drawn

the money by the said Somashekhar from RBL Bank and also

cheque given by the Proprietor, M/s. S3 Business Solutions Inc

and the said cheque was encashed by the said Somashekar and

the said amount was handed over to the present petitioner.

  14. In reply to this, learned counsel for the petitioner

would submit that this Court in detail discussed while passing

the earlier order in Crl.P.2470/2020 and the material, which they

are relying upon, is inadmissible and there is no any recovery at

the instance of this petitioner. Apart from that, the alleged self-

cheque does not bear any signature of this petitioner and hence,

this Court has to quash the proceedings.

  15. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner as well as learned counsel for the

respondent/Lokayukta and also respondent Nos.2 and 3, who

are formal parties, since other crime was registered in respect of
18

the very same incident, but in the case on hand, quashing is

sought for registration of the case by the Lokayukta Police.

Having considered the grounds urged in the petition as well as

oral submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties,

the following points would arise for consideration of this case:

      a) Whether the petitioner has made out a ground
         to quash the charge sheet proceedings against
         him in coming to a conclusion that there are no
         grounds to continue the proceedings against
         the petitioner as contended in the petition?

      b) What order?

  16. Having perused the material available on record, this

petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2 and accused No.1 is the

then ACP and this Court, no doubt, had quashed the proceedings

against accused No.1 vide order dated 8.9.2021 in

Crl.P.No.2470/2020. It is important to note that the allegation

of prevention of corruption case is registered against accused

Nos.1 and 2 only on the ground that a demand was made to

close the case in Crime No.164/2020, which was registered

against one Surush. It is also to be noted that the material
19

against this petitioner is based on the statement of one Mukesh

and the said statement was made on 22.05.2020. This Court

has taken note of the fact that the said Mukesh was in touch

with this petitioner and in the name of ACP, this petitioner

demanded the money of Rs.25 lakhs that ACP is demanding

Rs.25 lakhs. But this statement is very clear that this petitioner

demanded the money in the name of ACP, but also says that the

request was made to reduce the amount and the same was

reduced to Rs.15 lakhs and hence, the same was informed to the

said Amjad and the amount will be transferred to his account

and withdrew that money and handed over the same to the

present petitioner. The details are given in the statement and

different amounts are transferred, in total Rs.15 lakhs (Rs.5 lakh

each). From the account of Surush, he had transferred on

7.4.2020 and also the account number was given i.e.,

40900487486, RBL Bank, Koramangal Branch.

     17. It is also important to note that one Somashekhar

was examined before the learned Magistrate on 3.3.2021, who is

Head Constable and he categorically states that the present
20

petitioner called him over mobile phone bearing No.9900232323

on 2.4.2020 and asked him to come to a particular place, where

the petitioner handing over the cheque to him asked him to go

and meet the Lady Bank Manager for withdrawing the money,

and accordingly, he withdrew the money and handed over the

same to the present petitioner. So also, on 7.4.2020, in between

10 to 11 a.m., again the petitioner called the said Somashekar

over the phone to collect the cheque and withdraw the money,

accordingly, he collected the cheque and withdrew the money

and handed over the same to the petitioner. For having

withdrawn the money, he identifies himself in the CCTV footages

in respect of both dates i.e. on 2.4.2020 and 7.4.2020 and says

that only on the instruction of the present petitioner, he went

and withdrew the money and handed over the same to the

petitioner. It is also important to note that the statement of

Bank Manager Sangeetha was recorded on 30.05.2020 and she

also reiterates that Shaji George called her on 2.4.2020 and

7.4.2020 that he is sending self cheque with one person and she

brought the same to the notice of the Branch Manager Ajay and

without ID card, the amount was drawn and confirmed that the
21

said amount was given to the present petitioner. She further

says that as there were no one in the bank, Bank Manager Ajay

himself took the amount of Rs.2 lakhs and handed over to Shaji

George.

  18. Learned      counsel   for    the   respondent/Lokayukta

brought to the notice of this Court the seizure of Pendrive in

respect of those two dates for drawing of money by

Somashekhar as well as self-cheque given by Shaji George. No

doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that

there is no any counter signature of the present petitioner on the

cheque, however, the same are triable issues, since there are

statements made before the Investigating Officer by the above

persons for having this petitioner dealt with the matter and only

for demanding the money, referred the name of accused No.1.

No doubt, this Court quashed the proceedings against accused

No.1 on the ground that there was no any material and there

were number of cases registered against accused No.1 in respect

of the very same incident. In the present case, no doubt there

were two FIRs, one is Crime No.63/2020 and the police having
22

found that no material to continue the said proceedings in

respect of the offences punishable under Section 384 read with Section 34 of IPC, filed 'B' report. Now only one case is against

the petitioner i.e., demand and acceptance of money by invoking

the offences under the provisions of the PC Act. This Court

earlier made an observation that there were two cases and in

respect of the same incident, there cannot be two FIRs and

quashed the proceedings against accused No.1. In the case on

hand, specific allegations are made against the petitioner that

referring the name of ACP, he had demanded the money of

Rs.25 lakhs and the same was later reduced to Rs.15 lakhs. It is

also to be noted that from the account of Surush, who is the

accused in Crime No.164/2020, the amount was transferred in

total Rs.15 lakhs to the different accounts on different dates and

the said amount was withdrawn by the said Somashekar and his

statement is very clear that this petitioner only handing over the

self-cheque instructed him to draw the money and hand over the

amount and accordingly, he withdrew the money and handed

over the same to the present petitioner. All these factors are to

be considered during the course of trial. This Court cannot sit
23

and decide the case on merits while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Now the Investigating Officer investigated

the matter and collected the material including the digital

evidence with regard to drawing of money by Somashekhar and

also when he made the statement that he withdrew the money

and handed over the same to the present petitioner, the same is

a triable issue before the trial Court and he has to be examined

before the trial Court.

  19. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that this Court earlier quashed the proceedings in

respect of accused No.1 is concerned, no doubt, at the time of

considering the same, there were several cases in respect of the

particular incident and there was second FIR also. Now in the

present case, there is no any 2nd FIR and already police filed 'B'

report in respect of Crime No.63/2020. The present case is in

respect of Crime No.17/2020 for the allegation of demand and

acceptance of bribe money. Here there is a statement of

demand and acceptance of money by the petitioner. The

material on record also discloses that there are materials against
24

the petitioner including the statement of Bank Manager that the

present petitioner called and gave money to a particular person

to whom asked by the present petitioner to make the payment,

so also the mobile phone of the petitioner was seized, which

discloses the conversation between the present petitioner as well

as Shaji George, so also the Bank Manager and Shaji George; so

also the statement of Bank Manager is available before the

Court. Apart from that, there is a statement of Mukesh, who

dealt with the matter with regard to demand also. The Court

has to consider the digital evidence i.e. seizure of pendrive with

regard to drawing of money and handing over the same to the

present petitioner, so also the cheques, whether the cheque

bears the signature of the petitioner or not, also to be

considered by trial.

     20. No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioner

relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ashu

Surendranath Tiwari. In view of the said judgment, since

departmental enquiry is conducted against the petitioner,

wherein he was exonerated and the same is distinguished by this
25

Court in the earlier occasion in the case of State of Karnataka

Lokayuktha Police vs. T. Manjunath and others 3 and the

same is upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment4. The

counsel appearing for the respondent/Lokayukta also brought to

the notice of this Court the judgment of the Apex Court in the

case of Karnataka Lokayukta Bagalkote District, Bagalkot

vs. Chandrashekar and Another5, wherein at paragrpahs-15

and 16, it has held as under:

         "15. Having thus stated the law regulating the final
     decision in a departmental enquiry, we cannot but notice
     that in the present case, there is a final order produced as
     passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The learned Counsel
     for the respondent vehemently argued that a retired
     District Judge was the Enquiry Officer, which according to
     us gives the enquiry no higher sanctity than that would
     be conferred on any enquiry report in any disciplinary
     proceeding carried out by a person not trained in law. The
     Enquiry Officer often is appointed as an independent
     person who would have no connection with the
     management to ensure against any allegation of bias. A
     retired judicial officer being appointed as an enquiry
     officer does not confer the enquiry report any higher
     value or greater sanctity than that is normally available to
     such reports. We cannot but observe that in this case the
     Enquiry Officer fell into an error by requiring proof at a

3
2024 SCC OnLine 31785
4
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2597

5
2026 SCC OnLine SC 13
26

 higher level than that necessary under preponderance of
 probabilities and so did the Disciplinary Authority, in
 concurring with the same.

     16. ...................................We cannot but notice that
 there would be no consequence in not responding to a
 summons in departmental proceedings, while a like failure
 in criminal proceedings would be more drastic. The
 criminal court has ample powers to ensure the presence
 of a witness in a criminal proceeding, which the Enquiry
 Officer does not possess. In this context, the fact that the
 prosecuting agency and the one carrying on the
 departmental enquiry being two entities assumes
 significance. Further, here the trap was laid by the ACB,
 and the prosecution was conducted at the behest of the
 Lokayukta, and we cannot presume or anticipate any
 laxity on the prosecuting agency of not bringing the
 Inspector to the box, before the criminal court. More
 pertinently we cannot, on such anticipated laxity put an
 end to the prosecution."
                               (Emphasis supplied)

 21.   Having considered the principles laid down in the

judgment referred supra at paragraphs-15 and 16 and also in

the case of Ashu Surendranath Tiwari (supra), no doubt,

the Departmental Enquiry is conducted wherein the petitioner

was exonerated, but even the very same witnesses have not

supported the case in the Departmental Enquiry and this

Court cannot presume that they are also going to not support

the case on hand. Having considered the gravity of the

offence and the accusation made against the petitioner and
27

both are two different entities, assumes significance of

departmental enquiry and the criminal prosecution. This

Court earlier had already made an observation that a case of

trap and handing over the money, cannot be decided in a

departmental enquiry, wherein there are preponderance of

probabilities and in the case on hand, proving of the charges

leveled beyond reasonable doubt. When all these materials

are placed before this Court with regard to role of the

petitioner including the phone conversations with regard to

demand and acceptance and handing over the money, the

same requires to be considered during the course of trial.

Hence, the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2026 SCC

Online SC 13 referred supra comes to the aid of

respondent/Lokayukta and the matter requires full-fledged

trial in view of charges leveled against the petitioner and

there are specific allegations against this petitioner that he

indulged in all these acts by referring the name of ACP. No

doubt, this Court has quashed the proceedings against

accused No.1 and the Investigating Officer considering the
28

material during investigation has now filed charge sheet and

the said charge sheet material requires to be tested in trial

including the digital evidence. Hence, I do not find any

ground to quash the proceedings as contended by the learned

counsel for the petitioner. Hence, this is not a fit case to

invoke the provision under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and in a

proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., all these disputed

facts cannot be decided. Hence, I answered the point as

"negative".

 22.      In   view   of   the    discussions   made   above,

I proceed to pass the following:

                            ORDER The present criminal petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

(H.P. SANDESH)
JUDGE

JTR
CT:PA