Reserved on : 27.11.2025 Pronounced on : 30.01.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13175 OF 2023 BETWEEN:

SMT.B.H.BHARATHI W/O ANILKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, WORKING AS PSI, SHIVAMOGGA RURAL P.S, R/O NO.116, VIVEKANANDA LAYOUT, 3^RD CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, GOPALA, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 205.

... PETITIONER (BY SRI PARAMESHWAR N. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE SHIVAMOGGA DIVISION, FORMERLY ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU REPRESENTED BY ITS SPL.PP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 01. 2 . MR FHAIROZ S/O BHASHA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, LORRY DRIVER, R/A NEAR MAKKA MASJID, CHANNAGIRI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 213.

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;

R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIER PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.C.NO.217/2023 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 7(a) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT POLICE (KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA P.S., SHIVAMOGGA) AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF 1 ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 27.11.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner/accused No.3 is at the doors of this Court calling in question proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.217 of 2023 pending before the 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga registered for offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. Heard Shri Parameshwar N. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri B.B.Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

On 03-01-2019, respondent No.2 registers a complaint before the Lokayuktha Police alleging demand of bribe. A pre-trap mahazar is drawn by the Anti-Corruption Bureau on 03-01-2019 and on the pre-trap mahazar being drawn, a trap is laid and the tainted currency notes are seized from the hands of accused No.1. The petitioner is accused No.3, working as a Police Sub-Inspector. The petitioner was not the accused in the FIR, but the Police conduct investigation pursuant to registration of crime and during investigation found the conversation between the petitioner and the complainant with regard to demand or acceptance and drew the name of the petitioner as accused No.3 in the said charge sheet. The concerned Court takes cognizance of the offence and registers Spl.C.C.No.217 of 2023, which is what has driven the present petitioner/accused No.3 to this Court in the subject petition.

4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner taking this Court through the documents appended to the charge sheet and even the charge sheet would seek to contend that there is no allegation of demand or acceptance against the petitioner. The petitioner is not caught with the tainted currency. All that happened is qua accused No.1 and not the petitioner. The learned counsel would seek to place reliance upon the evidence of the complainant where the complainant himself in evidence says that there was no demand from the hands of the petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the entire allegations now boiled down to a person who has been caught with the tainted currency i.e., accused No.1.

4.2. The learned counsel further submits that on the same set of facts, a departmental enquiry was conducted and in the departmental enquiry, after examination of all the witnesses, it is found that the petitioner was not guilty of any of the offence and therefore, has been exonerated. Exoneration of which has been accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and the departmental enquiry has thus ended in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel submits in the light of the departmental enquiry ending in favo