Allowed

B Somashekar S/O Blc Boregowda v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Oct 2023CRL.P/103755/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed Criminal Petition seeking quashing of FIR and proceedings against accused involved in education racket, relying on a co-ordinate bench order quashing similar charges against an identically placed accused to prevent abuse of process and maintain parity.

What did the court decide?

Quashed proceedings in Spl.C.No.126/2012 against petitioners qua the principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari.

B Somashekar S/O Blc Boregowda Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11776 CRL.P No. 103755 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103755 OF 2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

B SOMASHEKAR S/O BLC BOREGOWDA AGE.45 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE WORK R/O.NO.261, 6TH MAIN ROAD SRINAGAR PIPE LINE BENGALURU-560050

¶7

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI

¶8

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Date: 2023.10.10 11:31:06 +0530

¶9

DR. PRAVEEN KUMAR A.S. S/O SHIVAPPA AGE.43 YEARS, OCC. MEDICAL PRACTITIONER R/O.NO.3, 5TH MAIN ROAD RAGHAVENDRA LAY OUT BANASHANKARI, 3RD STAGE HOSAKEREHALLI BENGALURU-560085 NOW R/O NO.3033, 1375, 95/2 AND95/3 ROSHAN GARDENIA APARTMENT 36TH MAIN ROAD, POORNAPRGNA LAYOUT UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560061

¶10

(BY SRI. T HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH CID, BENGALURU R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD

¶14

DR. PREMKUMAR S/O KM DODDALINGAPPA AGE.MAJOR, OCC. VICE CHANCELLOR RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE,

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11776 CRL.P No. 103755 of 2022

¶16

KARNATAKA,H.NO.411 (A-2) GHATAPRABHA BLOCK, NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE, HORAMANGAL, BENGALURU-560034

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1. SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., ADV FOR R2.)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE COMPLAINT, FIR IN CRIME NO. 56/2011 REGISTERED BY COWL BAZAR POLICE STATION, BALLRI, CHARGE SHEET IN SPL C NO. 162/2012 REGISTERED FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 417,418,420,465,468,409,109,114,161 OF IPC AND SECTION 117,118,119,120,121 AND 138 OF KARNATAKA EDUCATION ACT 1983 AND U/S 13(1)(C).13(1)(d) R/W 13(2) OF P.C ACT 1988 AND SUBSEQUENT ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 20.12.2012 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS DATED 20.12.2012 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THEREIN IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 3 AND 9 HEREIN.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 9 are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Spl.C.No.126/2012 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 418, 420, 465, 468, 109, 114, 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 117, 118, 119, 120, 121 and 138 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11776 CRL.P No. 103755 of 2022

¶24

Heard the learned counsel Sri. T. Hanumareddy appearing for the petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri. V.S. Kalasurmath appearing for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel Sri. Gangadhar J.M. appearing for respondent No.2.

¶25

The learned counsel Sri. T. Hanumareddy appearing for the petitioners would submit that the second petitioner, who is accused No.9 stands on the same footing as the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.101186/2022 which has been disposed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by quashing the proceedings. The petitioner, there, was a Doctor, who had solved the question papers. Petitioner No.2 in the case at hand is also a person who is appointed to solve the question papers. Therefore, petitioner No.2 stands on the same footing as the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.101186/2022. The Co-ordinate Bench has held as follows:

¶26

“ Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶27

The petitioner/accused No.13 has sought

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11776 CRL.P No. 103755 of 2022

¶29

quashing of the proceedings initiated against him in Special Case No.126/2012 (Crime No.56/20211) pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge Court, Ballari, for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 418, 420, 465, 468, 409, 109, 114, 161 of IPC and Section 117, 118, 119, 120, 121 and 138 of Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and under Section 13(1)(c), 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶30

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that charge sheet filed against the petitioner-accused No.1 has been set aside by this Court in Crl.P.No.101258/2022 and as such the charge sheet filed against the petitioner- accused No.13 cannot be continued.

¶31

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 did not dispute that this Court in Crl.P.No.101258/2022 has quashed the impugned proceedings as against the accused No.1.

¶32

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for parties.

¶33

So as to maintain parity and also to prevent abuse of process of law, the proceedings against the petitioner requires to be quashed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioneraccused No.13 in Special Case No.126/2012 pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, is hereby quashed.”

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11776 CRL.P No. 103755 of 2022

¶35

The learned counsel for the respondent-University

¶36

though would submit that the petitioners are not innocent as are projected and would seek further proceedings to be continued against them.

¶37

Solely on the reason that an identically placed co-accused has been given the benefit of quashment of the proceedings, I deem it appropriate to follow the same and quash the proceedings despite the objection of the learned counsel Sri. Gangadhar J.M.

¶38

Insofar as the 1^st petitioner is concerned, the petitioner is a temporary employee in the University whose job allotted was to issue Hall tickets to the concerned students. The role of the petitioner is restricted to issuing of the hall tickets. Therefore, issuance of hall tickets at the behest of other persons cannot become a crime for the offence so alleged. In the light of the fact that against the person, who had directed issuance of hall ticket, this Court has quashed the proceedings, in that light, the case against the 1^st petitioner also would tumble down.

¶39

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11776 CRL.P No. 103755 of 2022

¶40

For the aforesaid reasons, the following :

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i. The criminal petition is allowed.

¶43

ii. The proceedings in Spl.C.No.126/2012 pending on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, Ballari, stand quashed qua the petitioners.

Sd/-

JUDGE

kmv

Ct: bck

B Somashekar S/O Blc Boregowda v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Somashekar S/O Blc Boregowda v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Priyank Kharge Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.B.K. Hariprasad Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Shrishail S/O Rudrappa Nagaral Vs State of Karnataka

Avinash Yallanna Savanur Vs State of Karnataka

Santosh Kumar S/O Yamanappa Ambiger Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. v. Suresh S/O R Venugopal Vs State of Karnataka