Karnataka High Court
Anil vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1201
CRL.P No. 201065 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201065 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. ANIL S/O BABURAO SINDAGI,
AGE : 57 YEARS, OCC : TAXI DRIVER,
R/O # 32 B, NEERAPAM HOUSING SOCIETY
NEW RTO OFFICE ROAD, VIJAPUR ROAD
SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA - 413004
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJESH DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA THROUGH ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION,
DATTATRAYA KALABURAGI
UDAGI
Location: HIGH NOW REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL SPP,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH - 585103.
2. SMT. SHILPA W/O CHANNAVEER CHAKKI
AGE : 28 YEARS,
OCC: LECTURER IN SHARANBASAV UNIVERISTY,
R/O VAKKELGERA, MOMINPURA, NEHRU GUNJ
KALABURAGI- 585103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M., SPL.PP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1201
CRL.P No. 201065 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), U/SEC.
528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND
QUASH THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED
09.05.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE KALABURAGI IN SPL. KCOCA 01/2024
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 409, 420, 120(B), 201,
109, 114, 36, 37, 34 & U/S 3(1)(ii)(2)(3)(4) OF KCOCA ACT
2000., NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KALABURAGI
(ARISING OUT CRIME NO. 160/2023 OF ASHOK NAGAR POLICE
STATION) / IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.18
IS CONCERNED (AS PER CHARGE SHEET) & CONSEQUENTLY
QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED ARE CONCERNED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.18 in Spl.C.KCOCA No.1/2024, arising out of Crime No.160/2023, registered by Ashok Nagar Police, Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under sections 409, 420, 120(B), 201, 109, 114, 36 and 37 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section -3- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1201 CRL.P No. 201065 of 2025 HC-KAR 3(1)(ii)(2)(3)(4) of KCOCA Act, 2000, pending on the file of Prl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi.
2. The abridged facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 lodged the complaint before respondent No.1-Police on 28.10.2023, alleging that she is working as Assistant Lecturer in Sharanabasava University, Vidyanagar, Kalaburagi and was appointed as a Supervisor for the examination conducted by the Karnataka Examination Authority for the recruitment of FDA/SDA. It is further alleged that on the date of examination i.e., 28.02.2023 at about 11:30 a.m., when the examination was going on, the Deputy Director of KEA came along with Police to the examination center and taken custody of one Trimurti/accused No.1 and taken him outside the Exam Hall for interrogation and recovered Bluetooth device from him.
3. On enquiry, he revealed that his brother Ambareesh-accused No.2 was sitting outside the examination center in the car and answering the questions -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1201 CRL.P No. 201065 of 2025 HC-KAR and further revealed that one R.D.Patil/accused No.3 and others are helping him in the examination to use the Bluetooth device to write the examination and thereby to get Government jobs. Accordingly, respondent No.2 lodged the complaint before respondent No.1 on 28.10.2023 and on the strength of the said complaint, respondent No.1-Police registered FIR in Crime No.160/2023 dated 28.10.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120B, 109, 114, 36, 37 and 34 of IPC and Section 66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, 'I.T.Act') against Trimurti/accused No.1, Ambrish/accused No.2 and R.D.Patil/accused No.3.
4. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that, apart from these three accused persons, 17 other persons were involved in the examination malpractice forming a syndicate between them. Hence, respondent No.1-Police invoked the provisions of KCOCA Act, apart from the provisions of IPC and laid the charge -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1201 CRL.P No. 201065 of 2025 HC-KAR sheet against twenty persons by arraying this petitioner as accused No.18 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120(B), 201, 109, 114, 36 and 37 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(ii)(2)(3)(4) of KCOCA Act.
5. In the charge sheet, accusation made against this petitioner is that he is a member of the Syndicate and accused No.3/R.D. Patil, was known this petitioner prior to the incident. It was alleged that, after the incident, accused No.3 escaped from Jevargi taluk and went to Solapur and stayed in the house of this petitioner. Later, respondent No.1 arrested accused No.3 from the house of this petitioner on 10.11.2023.
6. Aggrieved by the proceedings against this petitioner, he filed this petition to quash the proceedings.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special PP for respondent No.1. Though notice is served to respondent No.2, she remained absent. -6-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1201 CRL.P No. 201065 of 2025 HC-KAR
8. Apart from urging several contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner primarily contented that the petitioner being accused No.18, is implicated in the crime only based on the voluntary statement of accused No.3. However, on perusal of the voluntary statement of accused No.3, he has categorically stated that he had not disclosed the commission of the offences with this petitioner while he obtaining shelter in the house of this petitioner. Hence, by emphasizing on the voluntary statement of accused No.3, learned counsel vehemently contended that on perusal of the entire charge sheet materials including the voluntary statement of accused No.3, the provisions of KCOCA and Section 109 of IPC do not attract against this petitioner.
9. He also contented that apart from the voluntary statement, absolutely no other materials placed in the entire charge sheet against this petitioner. According to him, respondent No.1-Police also failed to place the documents pertaining to the house of this petitioner, -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1201 CRL.P No. 201065 of 2025 HC-KAR where accused No.3 allegedly took shelter after the incident. In such circumstances, he prays to allow the petition.
10. Per contra, learned Special Counsel for respondent No.1 contented that this petitioner being the member of the syndicate, actively participated in the incident. According to him, by knowing fully that accused No.3 having participated in the examination malpractice, this petitioner gave shelter to him to escape from the clutches of the Police. In such circumstances, the offence under Section 3(1)(ii)(2)(3)(4) of KCOCA Act is applicable against this petitioner. He also contended that, in the voluntary statement of accused No.3 it is stated that this petitioner was known to him prior to the incident. In such circumstances, he prays to dismiss the petition.
11. I have given my anxious consideration both on the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and the documents available on record. -8-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1201 CRL.P No. 201065 of 2025 HC-KAR
12. Before delving into the merits of the case, it is appropriate to peruse Section 3(1)(ii)(2)(3)(4) of KCOCA Act, which reads as under:
3. Punishment for organized crime -
(1) whoever commits an organized crime shall, -
(i) xxxx
(ii) In any other case, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine, which shall not be less than five lakh rupees.
(2) Whoever conspires or attempts to commit or advocates, abets or knowingly facilitates the commission of an organized crime or any act preparatory to organized crime, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, which shall not be less than five lakh rupees.
(3) Whoever harbors or conceals or attempts to harbor or conceal, any member of an organized crime syndicate shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to a fine, which shall not be less than five lakh rupees.
(4) Any person who is a member of an organized crime syndicate shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine which shall not be less than five lakh rupees.-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1201 CRL.P No. 201065 of 2025 HC-KAR
13. Further Section 2(f) defines as "Organized crime syndicate", means a group of two or more persons who acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang, indulge in activities of organized crime;
14. On careful reading of the above provisions, it is clear that, in order to punish an accused under Section 3 of the KCOCA Act, a person must be a member of syndicate by or on behalf of a member of organized crime syndicate, he has do the act as provided in Section 3(3) to harbor or conceal any attempt to harbor or conceal any member of an organized crime syndicate.
15. On careful perusal of the accusation in the charge-sheet column No.17, the same depicts that, after the incident, accused No.3 being one of the prime accused in the case, escaped from Jevargi to Solapur. He was escaped in the car of his brother/Mahantesh Patil along with accused No.10 till Akkalkota toll i.e., border of Karnataka-Maharashtra. Thereafter, he went to Solapur and there to the house of this petitioner to take shelter.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1201 CRL.P No. 201065 of 2025 HC-KAR
16. However, on perusal of voluntary statement of accused No.3-R.D.Patil, he has categorically stated as under:
"£Á£ÀÄ CPÀÌ®PÉÆÃmÉ ºÀwÛgÀ EgÀĪÀ mÉÆÃ¯ï £ÁPÁzÀ ºÀwÛgÀ ¸Àé®à zÀÆgÀzÀ°è ¤°è¹ ªÀÄvÉÛà d¸ïÖ-qÉʹ֪¤ À UÉ PÁ¼ï ªÀiÁrw½¹zÀÄÝ, DvÀ£ÀÄ JzÀÄgÀÄUÀq¬É ÄAzÀ §gÀĪÁUÀ ¯ÉÊmï D£ï ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀÄÝ, ¯ÉÊmï D£ï §UÉÎ w½¸ÀĪÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ gÀ»ÃªÀiï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀĢåï EªÀjUÉ w½¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¸Àé®à ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ E£ÉÆêÁ PÁgÀzÀ°è ºÉÆÃV ¸ÉÆïÁè¥ÀÆgÀz° À è F ªÉÆÃzÀ®Ä ¥ÀjavÀ£ÁzÀ C¤Ã¯ï vÀAzÉ ¨Á§ÄgÁªÀ ¹AzsVÀ EªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV D±ÀA æ iÀÄ ¥ÀqzÉ ÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. DzÀgÉ F PÉøï DVgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀiÁ»w ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
17. Hence, on careful reading of the voluntary statement of accused No.3, he neither informed the commission of this incident of malpractice to this petitioner nor this petitioner was aware of the same. Admittedly, this petitioner was residing in Solapur and was totally unaware about the incident.
18. Further, on perusal of the entire charge-sheet materials, except the above voluntary statement, no other iota of evidence is placed by respondent No.1-Police
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1201 CRL.P No. 201065 of 2025 HC-KAR against this petitioner to substantiate that he acted as a member of the organized syndicate.
19. Section 109 of IPC reads as under:
"109. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment.--
Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence."
20. In the instant case, as discussed supra, this petitioner neither instigated nor participated or intentionally aided accused No.3 either to commit the offence or to abscond from the clutches of the police.
21. It is settled position of law that solely based on the voluntary statement of co-accused, other accused cannot be implicated unless if there is any other corroborative piece of evidence. In such circumstances, in my considered view, even if the entire allegations in the
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1201 CRL.P No. 201065 of 2025 HC-KAR charge-sheet materials taken on its face value, no offences have been made out against this petitioner/accused No.18.
22. It is now well settled that continuation of criminal proceedings against any person on the basis of a frivolous or vexatious complaint is something very serious. This would tarnish the image of the person against whom false, frivolous and vexatious allegations are leveled. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951, held that whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of constitution to get the FIR or criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstance, Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1201 CRL.P No. 201065 of 2025 HC-KAR FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. On the other hand, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstance emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C or Article 226 of Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case, but is empowered to take into a count the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation.
23. I am of the considered view that the continuation of proceedings against this petitioner/accused No.18 is abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1201 CRL.P No. 201065 of 2025 HC-KAR ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.18 in Spl.C.KCOCA No.1/2024, arising out of Crime No.160/2023, registered by Ashok Nagar Police, Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under sections 409, 420, 120(B), 201, 109, 114, 36 and 37 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(ii)(2)(3)(4) of KCOCA Act, 2000, pending on the file of Prl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 19 CT: PR