(Prayers: This Crl.p is filed u/s.482 of Cr.p.c.(old), u/s 528 of BNSS (new) praying to exercise the inherent powers U.Sec. 528 of BNSS examine the records and quash the proceedings in SPL case no. (Corruption) no. 04/2020 (crime no. 07/2018 of Lokayukta police station Kalaburagi, Dist Kalaburagi) for the offences u/sec. 7, 13, (1) (d), r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending before then Prl. District and sessions court at Kalabruagi, in the interest of justice and equity.)

This Crl.p is filed u/s.482 of Cr.p.c. (old), u/sec. 528 of BNSS (new), praying to exercise the inherent powers u/sec. 528 BNSS examine the records and quash the proceedings in SPL.C. no. 127/2019 (crime no.03/2018 of Lokayukta police station Yadgir, dist. Yadgir) for the offences u/sec. 7, 13(1)(d), r/w 13(2) of prevention of corruption act, 1988, pending before the district and sessions court at Yadgir, in the interest of justice and equity.

This crl.p is filed u/s.482 of Cr.p.c.(old) u/sec 528 of BNSS, praying to exercise the inherent powers u/sec 528 of BNSS examine the records and quash the proceedings in SPL case (Corruption) no.10/2018 (crime no.03/2017 of Lokayukta police station Kalaburagi, dist Kalaburagi) for the offences u/sec 7, 13(1)(d), r/w 13(2) of prevention of Corruption Act 1988, pending before the principal district and sessions court at Kalaburagi in the interest of justice and equity.)

Oral Order:

1. Heard learned counsel for parties in Crl.P.No.200501/2025 and Crl.P.No.200655/2025.

2. After arguing sometime, learned counsel for the parties submit that these petitions may be dismissed as not pressed.

3. In view of the submissions, Crl.P.No.200501/2025 and Crl.P.No.200655/2025 are dismissed as not pressed.

AS REGARDS CRL.P.NO.200736/2025, THE MATTER IS TAKEN UP FOR CONSIDERATION AS UNDER:

4. This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking to quash proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Spl.C.(Corruption) No.10/2018 (Crime No.03/2017) registered by ACB Police, Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 ( for brevity “P.C. Act”), Pending on the file Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi.

5. The abridged facts of the case are that, the petitioner/accused being a pubic servant working as Village Accountant in Katti Sangvi Village, on 07.02.2017, demanded illegal gratification of Rs.15,000/- from respondent No.2- complainant to show official favour in respect of deleting the endorsement of the Assistant Commissioner from Column No.11 of Record of Rights in respect of land bearing Sy.No.15/E measuring 6 acres 5 guntas of Katti Sangvi Village. In pursuance of such demand, the petitioner received an amount of Rs.6,000/- near mini Vidhana Soudha, Jewargi. The complainant, after recording the said demand and payment, lodged the complaint before the respondent No.1–Police in Crime No.03/2017 dated 10.02.2017 for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. Thereafter, on 10.02.2017, respondent No.1–Police after conducting the entrustment panchanama, conducted a trap of the petitioner while he receiving remaining illegal gratification of Rs.9,000/- on 10.02.2017 at about 04:20 p.m. near Nandini Tea Stall situated within the premises of mini Vidhana Soudha, Jewargi. Later, trap panchanama was drawn and tainted currency of Rs.9,000/- was recovered at the instance of the petitioner and after completing the investigation, respondent No.1-Police laid charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w section 13(2) of P.C Act. On receipt of the charge sheet, learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offences. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred this petition.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special counsel for respondent No.1-State.

7. Apart from urging several contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner primarily contended that, in the Departmental Enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has submitted the closure report dated 31.12.2024 and recommendation dated 07.01.2025 made by the Upa-Lokayukta and the Disciplinary Authority has accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and closed the proceedings by exonerating the petitioner on 18.02.2025, as the charges are not proved. According to the learned counsel, the criminal proceedings being initiated on false accusation and as the charges leveled against the petitioner in the Departmental Enquiry and criminal proceedings are being one and the same and the charges before the Departmental Enquiry has not proved. In such circumstance, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of Court and liable to be quashed.

8. By relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in T. Manjunath vs. State of Karnataka and Another in SLP (Crl.)No(s).11160-11161/2024, he contended that, in a case where the witness turned hostile before the Departmental Enquiry proceedings, though the accused is exonerated, the criminal charges cannot be quashed as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case. However, in the instant case, in the Departmental Enquiry, all the witnesses have supported the case, despite the petitioner exonerated from the Departmental Enquiry proceedings. In such circumstance, both the proceedings bear resemblance and the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

9. Per contra, learned Special counsel for respondent No.1-Lokayukta contended that, it is settled position of law by this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments that exoneration of delinquent Government employee in the Departmental Enquiry proceedings cannot, by itself, furnish a ground to quash the criminal proceedings even if both the proceedings are founded on the same set of facts. According to him, in the instant case, all the witnesses have supported in the Departmental Enquiry proceedings and in such circumstance, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T. Manjunath supra, exoneration in the Departmental Enquiry proceedings does not ipso facto furnish a ground for dropping criminal proceedings more particularly in trap cases. According to the learned Counsel, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T. Manjuanth supra held that, even though in the Departmental Enquiry proceedings, the delinquent Government employee is exonerated for witness not having supported and the same witness were charge sheeted in the criminal proceedings, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed/dropped against the accused. However, in the instant case, all the witnesses have supported in the Departmental Enquiry proceedings and there are every possibility of they supporting in the criminal proceedings. In such circumstance, he prays to dismiss the petition.

10. On perusal of the complaint and charge sheet materials, it is not in dispute, the petitioner exonerated in the Departmental Enquiry proceedings, despite all the witnesses have supported. However, the said order has been challenged by respondent No.1-Lokayukta. It is not in dispute, the witnesses in the Departmental Enquiry proceedings are also the witnesses in the criminal proceedings.

11. It is settled position of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal vs. State of West Bengal and Another reported in 2011 (3) SCC 581 that, the adjudication proceedings and the criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other and the finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceedings for criminal prosecution. In the instant case, since all the witnesses have supported in the Departmental Enquiry proceedings, quashing of criminal proceedings does not arise though the petitioner exonerated in the Departmental proceedings.

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 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 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 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. 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 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), 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of P.C. Act are 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.