Karnataka High Court
Ravindra Kumar Rotti vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5002
WP No. 203926 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
WRIT PETITION NO. 203926 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI RAVINDRA KUMAR ROTTI
S/O LATE SHARANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
WORKING AS INSTRUCTOR/ DEPUTY TAHSILDAR
DISTRICT TRAINING CENTRE,
BIDAR-585 401.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.S. BHAGWAT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SATHISH KUMAR D. GADKAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by RAMESH AND:
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
COURT OF LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, BIDAR PS,
KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KALABURGI-585 102.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, SPECIAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 528 OF
BNSS,2023 PRAYING TO, ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5002
WP No. 203926 of 2024
HC-KAR
THE IMPUGNED FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.
07/2024 DATED 07.11.2024 REGISTERED BY THE
RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 13(1)(b) READ WITH 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 (ANNEXURE-C) PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL
JUDGE, BIDAR AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER INCLUDING THE
COST OF THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA) The petitioner being the accused in Crime No.7/2024 of Lokayukta Police, Bidar registered for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [for short, 'the P.C. Act'] is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that, the Lokayukta Inspector filed the source report as per Annexure-B dated 29.07.2024 for the check period from 2010 to July, 2024 and showing the disproportionate asset -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5002 WP No. 203926 of 2024 HC-KAR at Rs.2,50,64,637/- which is 278.4% more than the income of the accused from the known source. Therefore, FIR came to be registered and investigation was undertaken. The petitioner has filed this petition on 23.12.2024 seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. As per the order dated 24.12.2024, he obtained an order of stay of the proceedings before the respondent-police. Therefore, it is clear that, except filing of the source report and registration of the FIR, no further investigation was undertaken by the Investigating Officer.
3. Heard Sri M.S. Bhagwat, learned Senior Advocate for Sri Satishkumar D. Gadkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gourish S. Khashampur, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent - Lokayukta Police.
4. It is the contention of the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that, the petitioner had joined the service as Village Accountant on 05.07.1994, but as -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5002 WP No. 203926 of 2024 HC-KAR per the source report the check period is from 2010. There is no explanation as to why the period from July, 1994 till 2009 was excluded by the Investigating Officer. Admittedly, during that period, the petitioner had an income which may be the source for acquiring properties. The petitioner had also filed income tax returns. The same were not taken into consideration by the Lokayukta Inspector.
5. It is also the contention of the learned Senior Advocate that, as per the source report there is reference to an Innova Car bearing Reg.No.KA-01/MV-4689 valued at Rs.25,00,000/-. The name of the owner is not mentioned in the source report. Annexure-K is the copy of the R.C., according to which one M/s. Praveen Kottani Associates is the owner, but not the petitioner.
6. It is also contended that, the daughter of the petitioner by name Vaishnavi was married to one Akash Biradar in the year 2018. Both are Assistant Professors -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5002 WP No. 203926 of 2024 HC-KAR appointed in an educational university. They are having independent income as they are drawing monthly salary. Inspite of that, the properties standing in the name of the daughter of the petitioner were taken into consideration by the respondent - police to allege that, the petitioner has amassed disproportionate wealth.
7. Learned Senior Advocate also contended that, the son of the petitioner is a Civil Contractor now aged 30 years. He was having independent income since about 7 years. But even the properties that were purchased by him were included in the source report to contend that they were purchased from out of the income of the petitioner, which has no basis. No preliminary enquiry as required was held by the respondent-police before registration of the FIR. The petitioner being the public servant, has submitted the APRs regularly to his employer and submitted Income Tax Returns since 2022. Without taking into consideration all these materials, FIR came to be registered which has caused miscarriage of justice. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5002 WP No. 203926 of 2024 HC-KAR The registration of the FIR is in abuse of process of law and therefore, he prays to quash the criminal proceedings.
8. Learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nirankar Nath Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others1 to contend that, when the check period stretches into several decades there will be inflation and natural progression in the changing economy affects the value of the assets. There must be some dynamic approach while considering the income and assets of an individual over a period of such long years. The process for scrutiny of the assets and liabilities, income and expenditure cannot be a mechanical one. There must be some margin which has to be given while making assessment, taking into consideration the economical inflations.
9. He has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in T.S. Rudreshappa vs. State of Karnataka and 1 Criminal Appeal No.5009 of 2024 decided on 04.12.2024 -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5002 WP No. 203926 of 2024 HC-KAR others2 to contend that, when the check period is not fixed by the respondent - police, when the source report was not prepared by conducting a preliminary enquiry, the criminal proceedings initiated on such source report is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
10. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent, opposing the petition, submitted that, the source report is prepared by the Lokayukta Police for the check period from 2010 to July, 2024. The income from all known sources acquired by the petitioner are taken into consideration in the source report. The ancestral property worth Rs.5,00,000/-, the income from the salary upto date at Rs.75,00,000/-, the income from rent Rs.5,00,000/-, income by obtaining loan of Rs.8,00,000/- in the name of the wife of the petitioner, income from agriculture at Rs.2,00,000/- are also taken into consideration. Even as per the petitioner, the income from the salary was only 2 Writ Petition No.14038/2022 decided on 03.12.2024 -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5002 WP No. 203926 of 2024 HC-KAR Rs.75,00,000/-. When the petitioner is not disputing any of the figures quoted by the respondent-police, he could not have sought for quashing the criminal proceedings.
11. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that, even though the check period starts from 2010, it is not in dispute that the petitioner might have joined service during 1994. But the income received by him from 1994 i.e., from the date of joining the service till the beginning of the check period was also taken into consideration. Under such circumstances, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner in any manner.
12. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that, the daughter of the petitioner got appointed in a private university on 13.06.2024 with the salary of only Rs.15,600/- per month. But properties were purchased in her name since from 2023. The son of the petitioner is not working anywhere, nor does he have any income. No such particulars are furnished by the petitioner till date. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5002 WP No. 203926 of 2024 HC-KAR However, the properties were purchased in his name since 2018. Similarly, the properties were purchased in the name of the wife of the petitioner. The petitioner is required to explain the source of income to acquire all these properties. He further submits that, only when the petitioner came to know that a source report is being prepared in respect of his income, he started filing Income Tax Returns in the year 2022-23. Earlier to that, he never filed such Income Tax Returns. Learned Special Public Prosecutor also submitted that, no materials are placed before the Court to contend that the APRs were filed by the petitioner regularly as required under law. The decision relied by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner may not be applicable to the facts of this case.
13. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in The State of Karnataka vs. L.C. Nagaraj3 to contend that, the legitimate income of the petitioner and 3 Diary No.37568/2023 decided on 23.04.2024
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5002 WP No. 203926 of 2024 HC-KAR his family members including wife and children is to be considered by the Police during investigation, and it is to be evaluated by the Trial Court during trial. While exercising the power under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [for short, 'the BNSS, 2023'] a mini trial cannot be conducted. Therefore, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the petition.
14. Perused the materials on record.
15. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
Whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner is liable to be quashed invoking inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023?
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following:
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5002 WP No. 203926 of 2024 HC-KAR REASONS
16. The petitioner has filed this petition immediately after registration of the FIR on the basis of the source report. In the petition, the petitioner has not highlighted what his income is from the date when he joined the service upto date. However, as per the source report his salary income is Rs.75,00,000/-. The same is not seriously disputed by the petitioner. The source report refers to the properties, both movable and immovable, standing in the names of the petitioner, his wife, son and daughter. Even though it is contended that, the son of the petitioner is a Civil Contractor and is having independent income, no scrap of paper is produced before this Court to substantiate the same. Even though it is contended that the daughter of the petitioner is an Assistant Professor having independent income, the appointment order produced before the Court is dated 13.06.2024 and her salary is Rs.15,600/- per month. The son-in-law of the petitioner was appointed in the University on 01.08.2018
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5002 WP No. 203926 of 2024 HC-KAR with a salary of Rs.37,400/- per month. But the properties are standing in the names of the son and daughter of the petitioner since 2018. No materials are placed before the Court to prima facie show that the petitioner has submitted APRs periodically as required by law. The Income Tax Returns produced as additional documents by the learned counsel for the petitioner discloses that, such returns came to be filed only since 2022-23.
17. The preparation of source report is in the form of a preliminary enquiry that is held by respondent - police to gauge the known source of income and to find out if there is any amassing of wealth disproportionate to the known source of income. When such prima facie materials are found to contend that there are disproportionate assets amassed when compared to the known source of income, the FIR came to be registered. It is at this preliminary stage that the petition came to be filed and an interim order of stay was obtained. Meaning
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5002 WP No. 203926 of 2024 HC-KAR thereby, no further investigation was undertaken by the Investigating Officer on the basis of the FIR.
18. Even though the petitioner contends that, he is having documents to show that he was appointed in the year 1994 and was having sufficient income till the check period, nothing prevents him from producing the same before the Investigating Officer. He can also produce his Income Tax Returns, the APRs which he claims to have filed with his higher officer, before the Investigating Officer. Similarly, he can also produce the documents to show that, his son is earning independent income, so also his daughter, from which they acquired the properties. Under such circumstances, the Investigating Officer will be in a position to consider such documents and to arrive at a right conclusion. If at the end of the investigation the Investigating Officer finds that the wealth amassed by the petitioner was well within the known source of income, it may end up in filing 'B' report. Under such circumstances, I do not find any substance in the contention raised by the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5002 WP No. 203926 of 2024 HC-KAR learned Senior Advocate seeking to quash the criminal proceedings.
19. It is the settled proposition of law that, while exercising the power under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, this Court is not supposed to hold a detailed enquiry or a mini trial to find out as to whether the petitioner is having any disproportionate asset or not. In other words, this Court cannot assume the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer to verify the records and to form an opinion in favour of the petitioner.
20. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'negative' and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE SWK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 CT:PK