State Of Karnataka vs Prabhu Shankar

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 839

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
State Of Karnataka & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Prabhu Shankar & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.(s) of 2026 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 1522 of 2022) With Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2026 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 1852 of 2022) With Criminal Appeal No(s) of 2026 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 2361 of 2022) With Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2026 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 1755 of 2022) With Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2026 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 2033 of 2022) With Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2026 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6639 of 2022) With Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2026 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6680 of 2022)
Decided On : 30-07-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Prateek Chadha, A.A.G. Ms. Patil Rekha Chandra Gouda, AOR Mr. Jadhav Vishal, Adv. Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Adv. Mr. Vishal M Vandaganoor, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Soni, Adv. Mr. Prateek Chadha, A.A.G. Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Mr. Kunal Rana, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Soni, Adv. Mr. Aniket chauhaan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, AOR Ms. Priya Naik, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Ms. Sakshi Banga, Adv. Ms. Astha Singh, Adv. Mr. N.r. Shwetabh, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present batch of seven appeals have been preferred by the State of Karnataka against the common judgment and orders dated 08.09.2021 passed in:

ii. Criminal Petition No. 3297/2020 connected with Criminal Petition No. 488/2021²[Hereinafter ‘second impugned order’.] (‘second impugned order’);

iii. Criminal Petition No. 2390/2020³[Hereinafter ‘third impugned order’.] (‘third impugned order’); and

iv. Criminal Petition No. 2389/2020.⁴[Hereinafter ‘fourth impugned order’.] (‘fourth impugned order’).

3. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that six FIRs were registered against the respondents, including Mr. Prabhu Shankar⁵[Hereinafter ‘respondent no. 1’.], Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Bengaluru and Mr. Niranjan Kumar C.⁶[Hereinafter ‘respondent no. 2’.], Police Inspector, Central Crime Branch, Bengaluru under Sections 7(a), 13(1)(a) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988⁷[Hereinafter ‘PC Act’.] and Section 384 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860⁸[Hereinafter ‘IPC’.].

4. Aggrieved by these FIRs, the abovementioned accused persons filed criminal petitions seeking quashing of the FIRs before the High Court of Karnataka under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Vide four impugned orders dated 08.09.2021, the High Court allowed the criminal petitions and quashed the aforementioned FIRs against these accused persons, primarily on the grounds of lack of prima facie material, unexplained delay, and allegations of malafides.

5. For ease of reference, the allegations in the FIR, along with consequent petition numbers, are set out below:

S.No.	FIR No.	Allegations	HC Petition	SLP Number
1.	Crime No. 17/2020 Dt. 21.05.20	Date of incident: 30.03.2020 Complainant: Dy. SP, ACB Registered u/s 7(a), 13(1)(a) read with 13(2) of the PC Act.	Crl. P. 2470/2020	SLP (Crl.) 1522/2022
2.	Crime No. 15/2020 Dt. 21.05.20	Date of incident: 02.04.2020 - 08.05.2020 Complainant: Dy. SP, ACB Registered u/s 7(a), 13(1)(a) read with 13(2) of the PC Act.	Crl. P. No. 2473/2020	SLP (Crl.) No. 1852/2022
3.	Crime No. 16/2020 Dt. 21.05.20	Date of incident: 25.04.2020 Complainant: Dy. SP, ACB Registered u/s 7(a), 13(1)(a) read with 13(2) of the PC Act.	Crl. P. No. 2485/2020	SLP (Crl.) No. 2361/2022
4.	Crime No. 23/2020 Dt. 24.06.20	Date of incident: 16.04.2020 Complainant: Anwar Mohd. Fahim Registered u/s 7(a), 13(1)(a) read with 13(2) of the PC Act.	Crl. P. No. 3297/2020 Crl. P. No. 488/2021	SLP (Crl.) No. 1755/2022 SLP (Crl.) No. 2033/2022
5.	Crime No. 63/2020 Dt. 12.05.20	Date of incident: 30.03.2020 – 09.04.2020 Complainant: Shaji George Thomas Registered u/s 384 read with 34 of the IPC.	Crl. P. No. 2390/2020	SLP (Crl.) No. 6639/2022
6.	Crime No. 64/2020 Dt. 12.05.20	Date of incident: 20.04.2020 Complainant: Adil Azeez Registered u/s 384 read with 34 of the IPC.	Crl. P. No. 2389/2020	SLP (Crl.) No. 6680/2022

6. Upon consideration of the first impugned order, we find the High Court to have made the following observations:

a. The delay in lodging of FIR has not been properly explained.

b. There is no demand and acceptance, which is sine qua non for registration of a case under the PC Act.

c. Moreover, the registration of FIRs in the present case (Crime No. 15, 16, 17 of 2020) amounts to second FIRs for the same offence, as earlier Crime No. 63 and 64 of 2020 has been registered under IPC sections on the same set of allegations.

d. The court observed that the cases appeared to be a re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 839

Cases Referred (5)