Karnataka High Court
Sri Raju S vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 July, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:26743
WP No. 20045 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.20045 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI RAJU S
S/O SADARI VENKATARAMIREDDY
GARI GOPALAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.17
3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN
BEML LAYOUT, R R NAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 098
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
NO.5-6, VENKATAPURAM
MANEPALLI, LEPAKSHI
ANANTAPUR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 515 331.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KARTHIK KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by AND:
MARKONAHALLI
RAMU PRIYA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA BY THALAGHATTAPURA PS
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SRI. NAGARAJU R
POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
THALAGHATTAPURA POLICE STATION
THALAGHATTAPURA, KANAKAPURA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 109.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:26743
WP No. 20045 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER / ACCUSED IS
CONCERNED, IN C.C.NO.8477/2023, INITIATED BY THE LEARNED
I/C II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 98 OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, REGISTERED
BY RESPONDENT THALAGHATTAPURA POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU, IN CRIME NO.0085/2023, VIDE ANNEXURE-C., ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
(a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ or order seeking to quash the entire proceedings, in so far as Petitioner/Accused is concerned, in C.C.No.8477/2023 initiated by the Learned I/c II Addl.
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Section 98 of Karnataka Police Act, registered by Respondent Thalaghattapura Police Station, Bengaluru, in Crime No.0085/2023, vide Annexure-C.
(b) Pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:26743 WP No. 20045 of 2025 HC-KAR
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that respondents instituted the impugned proceedings by filing a complaint which is registered as FIR in Crime No.85/2023 dated 27.03.2023 for an offence punishable under Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. After investigation, the respondents have filed the charge-sheet, which is pending in C.C.No.8477/2023 before the Trial Court. In this context, it is relevant to state that under identical circumstances in R. Amarnatha vs. State of Karnataka and another (Crl.P.No.50/2024), this Court quashed the impugned proceedings under Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act while holding as under:-
"1. The petitioner/accused is sought to be prosecuted for offences punishable under Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate relief.
2. The prosecution alleges that during the Lok Sabha Elections 2019, on 02.04.2019 at approximately 2:00 -4- NC: 2025:KHC:26743 WP No. 20045 of 2025 HC-KAR PM, the complainant, along with the staff while on duty, intercepted the petitioner's vehicle at a check post. Upon inspection, it was discovered that the petitioner was in possession of a sum of Rs.8,38,250/- without any valid documents to substantiate its lawful possession.
3. I have heard the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) representing the respondent State.
4. It is pertinent to note that the offence punishable under Section 98 of the Act is a non-cognizable offence. As per the provisions of Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), when the police seek to investigate a non- cognizable offence, it is mandatory for them to obtain prior permission from a Magistrate before initiating any investigation.
5. However, in the present case, the investigation was conducted by the police without obtaining the requisite order under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. This non-compliance with the statutory requirement renders the investigation as well as the consequent cognizance of the alleged offences legally untenable and vitiated.
6. Section 98 of the Act provides states that "Whoever is found in possession of, conveys in any manner, or offers for sale or pawn, anything which there is reason to believe is stolen property or property fraudulently obtained, -5- NC: 2025:KHC:26743 WP No. 20045 of 2025 HC-KAR shall, if he fails to satisfactorily account for such possession or act to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, be punished with imprisonment upon conviction."
7. In the present case, the materials on record, including the charge sheet, do not indicate that the complainant had any reasonable belief or suspicion that the cash found in possession of the petitioner was stolen property or was fraudulently obtained.
8. The mere possession of a large amount of cash without valid documents does not, by itself, constitute an offence under Section 98 of the Act. To establish an offence under this provision, it must be demonstrated that the property in question is either stolen or fraudulently obtained.
9. In the absence of any such allegation or reasonable suspicion on record, the essential ingredients required to establish the commission of an offence under Section 98 of the Act are conspicuously absent. Therefore, allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
10. For the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.976/2019 pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere, are hereby quashed."
4. In Kesari Chand vs. State of Karnataka and others (W.P.No.13900/2023), this Court held as follows:- -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:26743 WP No. 20045 of 2025 HC-KAR "This petitioner is sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
2. The Summary of the First Information Report is as follows:
On 25.3.2023, when Sub-Inspector of Police, Nanjangud Rural Police Station along with Police personnel were conducting search of vehicles in connection with the State Assembly Election 2023, the car in which the petitioner was proceeding was intercepted and on inspection it was un- covered that a cash of Rs.3,00,000/- was found in possession to which the petitioner explained that he was proceeding to Mysuru to purchase construction materials. However, the petitioner failed to show any records regarding the amount.
3. The Station House Officer submitted a requisition with the learned Magistrate to grant permission to investigate the offence under Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 25.3.2023 granted permission to investigate and in pursuance of the same, the respondent Police registered the FIR in crime No.73/2023 for the offence under Section 98 of Karnataka Police Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the absence of any material that the money which is recovered from the petitioner was stolen, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under -7- NC: 2025:KHC:26743 WP No. 20045 of 2025 HC-KAR Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. He further submits that the search and seizure in connection with the State Assembly Election is impermissible since the Election Code of Conduct came into effect from 30.3.2023.
5. Learned HCGP for the State submits that the petitioner was found in possession of stolen money and police have rightly registered the FIR and at this stage, investigation cannot be interfered with.
6. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. On 25.3.2023, upon conducting of search of the car in which the petitioner was traveling, it was uncovered that a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was in possession of the petitioner. The petitioner explained to the Police that he was carrying the said amount for purchasing the construction materials. The Election Code of Conduct came into effect from 30.3.2023. The petitioner was not required to carry any records for possessing the said amount, since as on the date of the incident the Code of Conduct was not in force. The petitioner has also annexed the statement of accounts to establish that the firm of which the petitioner is the partner was having a balance of Rs.4,37,000/-.
8. Even otherwise, there must be a probable cause to prosecute the petitioner for the offence under Section 98 of Karnataka Police Act. However, there is no material to substantiate that the money in possession was -8- NC: 2025:KHC:26743 WP No. 20045 of 2025 HC-KAR suspected to be stolen for fraudulently obtained to constitute an offence under Section 98 of Karnataka Police Act.
9. Therefore, the continuation of investigation will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
10. The impugned First Information Report in FIR No.102/2023 registered by the Rural Police Station, Nanjangud stands quashed.
11. The petitioner is entitled for return of the cash of Rs.3,00,000/- seized from him by the police, and in the event an application is made, the learned Magistrate to pass order on the said application for release of money."
5. In Sumedh Prashanth Chaphekar vs. State by Imangala Police Station and another (W.P.No.1939/2024), this Court held as follows:-
"This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1, under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India read with 482 of CR.P.C., for quashing the charge sheet in C.C.No.800/2023 arising out of Crime No.50/2023 registered by the Imangala Police station, for the offence punishable under Section 98 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred as "KP Act"), on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hiriyuru.-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:26743 WP No. 20045 of 2025 HC-KAR
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.2.
3. The case of the prosecution is that respondent No.2/Girish Yadav who was posted for election special duty, during the Karnataka Assembly Election in 2023 and a vehicle belonging to the petitioner was intercepted and said to have found Rs.2,75,000/- in his possession. The petitioner has not accounted for the same. Hence, they seized the same, obtained the permission of Magistrate, registered FIR and filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under section 98 of KP Act, which is under challenge.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contented, in order to attract section 98 of KP Act, the petitioner must have stolen the said seized property or used the same for fraudulent purpose. However, nothing has been mentioned in the charge sheet. The petitioner's father is a doctor, also he is a film producer. He has received the amount from his father and he was carrying the same to Mumbai on the National Highway 48. The election flying squad seized the money. The said amount was belonging to petitioner's family and the auditor also had given certificate in respect of the amount. Therefore, prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP objected the same and contented that the petitioner has not given satisfactory explanation to the police. Therefore, charge sheet came to be filed.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26743 WP No. 20045 of 2025 HC-KAR
6. Having heard the arguments perused the records. It is not in dispute that the petitioner while travelling in car, was intercepted and seized the amount of Rs.2,75,000/- from his possession. Of course, he has not given satisfactory explanation, at that time. However, the petitioner produced the Audit Certificate, to show that this amount belongs to his father and was given to this petitioner. As per section 98 of KP Act, where the offence is only punishable when the person is in possession or converse in any manner, or offers for sale, anything which is reason to believe that it is a stolen property or property fraudulently obtained, then only it is punishable. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in case of State of Karnataka Vs P.Gopalakrishna Panikar reported in ILR 1991 KAR 1539 where the Hon'ble Division Bench had held at paragraph No.4, it is held as under;
"4. So far as the charge levelled in respect of Articles 39 to 145, it may be noticed that even in the charge-sheet and the accusation, there is absolutely no mention that there was reason to believe that they were stolen properties or properties fraudulently obtained. Before a person could be expected to account for possession of any such article within the meaning of Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act, it must be established that there is reason to believe that the same is stolen property or property fraudulently obtained. When there is not even a whisper, of this ingredient in the case there was no duty enjoined on the respondent to account for the possession of these articles and not accounting for the same cannot be held to be an offence within the meaning of the above said Section. Therefore, in any view of the matter, it is clear
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26743 WP No. 20045 of 2025 HC-KAR that there could be no grievance against the acquittal of the respondent, and hence, there is no merit in this appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed."
7. Here in this case, the Election Squad had seized the amount which was carried by him, during the time when there was enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct, during the election. Except that, there is no allegation against the petitioner, for having obtained it fraudulently or carrying the same for disbursing to any voters during the election. Such being the case, continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner requires to be quashed.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Consequently, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.800/2023 arising out of Crime No.50/2023 registered by the Imangala Police station, on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hiriyuru, is hereby quashed.
The amount seized by the police is ordered to be released to the petitioner."
6. In the instant case, the material on record would clearly indicates that mere possession of large amount of cash without a valid document does not by itself constitute an offence under Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act, especially when it is not demonstrated that the property in question was fraudulently
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26743 WP No. 20045 of 2025 HC-KAR obtained so as to give rise to reasonable suspicion constituting offence punishable under Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the continuation of the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law.
7. In the result, I pass the following :
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.8477/2023 (arising out of Crime No.85/2023 of Thalaghattapura Police Station) pending on the file of the II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, insofar as petitioner is concerned, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59