Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24803

Reserved on : 08.04.2026

Pronounced on : 25.04.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.578 OF 2026

BETWEEN:

MR.K.S.GANGADHARAIAH

S/O SIDDAGANGAIAH K.,

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO.292,

GROUND FLOOR, 3RD A CROSS,

BASAVESHWARANAGAR,

BENGALURU – 560 079.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI PARAMESHWAR N.HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA,

BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE

BENGALURU RURAL,

REPRESENTED BY ITS

SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

BENGALURU – 560 001.

2 . MR.GIRISH PANDU RODAKAR

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE,

BENGALURU RURAL – 560 001.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI LETHIF B., ADVOCATE)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Parameshwar N.Hegde
For the Respondents: Lethif B.

A private individual involved in a network of corruption to influence public servants can be proceeded against under anti-corruption laws. Investigation into such systemic irregularities should not be stifled at a preliminary stage merely because the accused is a private person or not caught in direct possession of bribe money.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7(a), 7(b), 8, 9 and 10 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 318(2)(3) and 336(2) - Quashing of FIR - Petitioners not being public servants does not immunity them from criminal web if there is prima facie evidence of involvement in a network of corruption. (Paras 8, 9)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of proceedings - While deciding a quash petition, the court cannot stifle investigation into deep-rooted financial irregularities merely because the petitioner is not a public servant or was not caught red-handed, especially when prima facie evidence exists regarding the commission of offences under the anti-corruption framework. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
An investigation was initiated suo motu into a network of financial irregularities involving officials receiving illegal gratifications for facilitating the transit of goods. During a trap operation, a bag containing a significant cash amount was seized from a public servant and a private individual. The latter made a confession implicating the petitioner in the organized transfer of bribe money. The petitioner challenged the FIR on the grounds of being a private individual and not being found in direct possession of the evidence.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the investigation against the petitioner for offences relating to bribery and corruption, specifically those targeting commercial organizations and persons in charge thereof, could not be terminated at a preliminary stage. The evidence, including seized materials and statements recorded before the magistrate, establishes a prima facie case of a corruption network necessitating further investigation.

Issues: Whether the registration of a crime against a private individual, who is not a public servant and not caught red-handed, warrants the quashing of an FIR when allegations of deep-rooted systemic corruption and involvement in a bribery network are made.

Ratio Decidendi: Though the petitioner is a private person, the statutory provisions pertaining to the bribery of public servants by commercial organizations and their representatives are comprehensive enough to include private actors involved in a corrupt nexus. The court must refrain from stifling a legitimate investigation where a prima facie link between the petitioner and the illegal transaction is established through evidence and witness statements.

Result: Petition dismissed.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.06/2025 REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT LOKAYUKTHA POLICE STATION (BENGALURU RURAL) FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 7(a), 7(b), 8, 9, 10 OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988 (AMENDED 2018) R/W SECTION 318(2)(3) AND 336(2) OF BNS 2023 AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 9TH ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.04.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CAV ORDER

The petitioner/accused No.2 is before the Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.6 of 2025 for offences punishable under Sections 7(a), 7(b), 8, 9 and 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘Act’ for short) and Sections 318(2)(3) and 336(2) of the BNS.

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

2. Heard Sri Parameshwar N. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B. Lethif, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

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

A suo motu complaint comes to be registered by the 2nd respondent/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta before the 1st respondent/Police on 23-04-2025 alleging that he has credible information that Commercial Tax Officers are receiving illegal gratification and are indulging in networking with regard to transportation of pan masala, iron, steel and scrap material to different areas of Bangalore from Delhi, thereby causing huge loss to the state Exchequer. On a preliminary enquiry, the complainant is said to have become aware that accused No.1/M.R. Nijanandamurthy, working as Commercial Tax Officer receives money from the owner of the Company by name “The Transporter” in connivance with other officers. On further enquiry, it was further found that a bag containing ₹20/- lakhs on 23-04-2025 was collected from Chickpet or Nagarabhavi office of the Company.

Panch witnesses were secured from the office of the Regional Transport Office, Yeshwanthpur at about 6.05 p.m. and the trap team is said to have noticed one person coming in his two-wheeler and another person approaching the said person with one bag and keeping it on the two-wheeler. Immediately, the trap team surrounded them and on enquiry it was revealed by the person that his name is Nijanandamurthy and another person is Manoj. Manoj reveals the name of a person by name Gangadhar - the petitioner who had instructed him to collect money from one Usman at Hansan Traders, Chickpet and hand over the same to Nijanandamurthy. The bag containing ₹20/- lakhs was seized, as Nijanandamurthy did not offer any satisfactory explanation. The bag was subjected to seizure panchanama and Nijanandamurthy was subjected to arrest. Upon verification of call record details of Nijanandamurthy, it is found that there were numerous calls between Nijanandamurthy and the petitioner. The Police then submit a requisition to the concerned Court to include the name of the petitioner and draw him as accused No.2. Drawing the petitioner as accused No.2 has brought him to this Court in subject petition.

4. The learned counsel Sri Parameshwar N. Hegde, appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner is not a public servant. He is a common man. He cannot be drawn into the web of proceedings merely because some person takes the name of the petitioner. The petitioner was not found in possession of the bag. The petitioner was not the one who transported or received it. It is only when Manoj was caught at the time of trap that the name of the petitioner comes to be revealed. It is, therefore, that the petitioner is drawn into the web of crime, which should not be permitted, as numerous names being drawn will lead to many people coming into the web of crime without any iota of evidence.

5. Per contra, Sri B. Lethif representing the respondent/ Lokayukta has placed original records for the perusal of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document