A second petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings was deemed non-maintainable under Section 482 due to the lack of new grounds or circumstances, with emphasis on ensuring full judicial trial for serious allegations.

ORDER :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioner is before this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (528 of BNSS), seeking quashment of the entire criminal proceedings in Crime No.118 of 2024 pending before the XXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (P.C.Act), Bengaluru and consequent filing of the charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC and Section 13 (1) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

2.1. The 3^rd respondent/Karnataka Maharshi Valmiki Parishista Pangadagala Abhivruddi Nigama represented by its General Manager is the complainant. The petitioner is accused No.1 in the charge sheet so filed in Crime No.118 of 2024. The brief history to the arraigning of the petitioner as accused No.1 is germane to be noticed. On 19-02-2024, an account comes to be opened in Union Bank of India, M.G. Road Branch (‘the Bank’ for short) in the name of Karnataka Maharshi Valmiki Parishishta Scheduled Tribes Development Corporation Limited (‘the Corporation’ for short). Immediately after opening of the account, on various dates from 04-03-2024 to 21-05-2024 amount totaling to Rs.187.33 crores is deposited and transferred into the account of the Corporation by 5 transactions in total i.e., Rs.25/- crores on 4-03- 2024; Rs.25/- crores on 6-03-2024; Rs.44/- crores on 21-03-2024; Rs.33/- crores on 22-03-2024; Rs.50/- crores on 21-05-2024. Between 5-03-2024 and 6-05-2024, 18 transfers are made to various accounts held by business entities totaling to Rs.94,73,08,500/-.

2.2. On 23-05-2024, the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation questions the officers of the Bank about transfers. On questioning,the transfer of Rs.5/- crores was immediately restored into the account of the Corporation. Noticing some serious foul play, a complaint comes to be registered by the Corporation before the High Grounds Police Station alleging gross irregularities and misappropriation inter alia, by the employees of the Bank. On 28-05-2024, the complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.118 of 2024 against 6 officials of the Bank. Several persons who were not named in the crime were taken into custody on 31-05-2024. On 11-06-2024, the Investigating Officer noticing the fact that certain amounts have emanated or dropped into the account of the petitioner, approached the house of the petitioner at 11.30 p.m. at Hyderabad and takes him into custody by undertaking search of the house, on search and seizure warrant. About Rs.8/- crores of cash was found in the house, apart from several kilograms of gold. Rs.8/- crores of cash was counted throughout the night in the presence of the petitioner and the petitioner was produced before the 13^th Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad seeking transit warrant to bring him to the jurisdictional Magistrate at Bengaluru.

2.3. The learned Magistrate returns the request for transit warrant, since the petitioner was not named in the FIR. On 12-06-2024 when the transit warrant was returned, the Officers of Crime Investigation Department (‘CID’) bring the petitioner back to Bengaluru by road. On bringing him back to Bengaluru he was taken to medical checkup. After medical checkup he was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate who orders him to be taken to police custody. The petitioner, on being taken into police custody, approaches this Court in Writ Petition No.14252 of 2025 calling in question his arrest on 11-06-2024 as illegal and consequently seeking release of the petitioner from judicial custody then. As a ground thereof, the remand order dated 26-06-2024 was sought to be quashed. A coordinate Bench of this Court in terms of its order dated 12-06-2025 dismissed the petition. The dismissal of the petition has become final. A week after dismissal of the petition, the subject petition is preferred b