Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
Kumar A.V., S/o. Veeranjanappa – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Through The Police Inspector, Represented By Public Prosecutor – Respondent
ORDER :
MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioners, learned Special Prosecutor for the State/Lokayukta Police/respondent No.1, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant and perused the material on record.
2. Writ Petition Nos.11255/2025 and 11549/2025 are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’), whereas Criminal Petition No.6711/2025 is preferred under of the .
3. Writ Petition No.11255/2025 is filed by accused No.1; Writ Petition No.11549/2025 is filed by accused Nos.2 and 5; and Criminal Petition No.6711/2025 is filed by accused Nos.3 and 4. Since all these petitions arise out of the same FIR seeking identical reliefs, they are being disposed of together by this common order.
4. The petitioners are seeking to quash the FIR registered by the Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru, in Crime No.17/2025 and all consequential proceedings pending before the Court of the XXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bengaluru.
5. FIR is registered for the offences punishable under section 7(a) & 7(
The absence of demand for illegal gratification renders allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act unsubstantiated, emphasizing that civil disputes cannot be criminalized.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of specific and credible evidence to establish the commission of a cognizable offence, especially in cases involving allegations of....
The court established that prima facie evidence of a bribe demand is sufficient to justify an investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and that quashing an FIR should be an exception rat....
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential to establish an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Economic Offences-unlawful circulation of cigarettes – Quash of FIR - where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ul....
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential under the Prevention of Corruption Act; absence of such evidence warrants quashing of FIR.
A FIR initiates criminal proceedings without needing specific role attribution; sufficient evidence during investigation upholds its validity, especially in corruption cases.
The judgment established the principle that a second FIR for the same cause may not be permissible if the incidents could have been investigated in the first FIR, and that the abuse of power by the I....
Point of law: when the materials relied upon by a party are required to be proved., no infererwe can be drawn on the basis of those materials to conclude the complaint to be unacceptable. The Court s....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
