Disposed¶39

Mr K Rajanna v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC28 Nov 2025CRL.P/2113/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing petition against PC Act 1988 S.13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) trial (Spl.C.C.No.407/2016, Lokayukta P.S. Bengaluru) where accused ex-ASI K. Rajanna stood finally exonerated in a departmental enquiry on identical facts/documents/witnesses; Karnataka High Court disposed the petition without interfering at the evidence-recording stage, directing the Special Judge to hear the petitioner on his final exoneration while deciding the case; refers to Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. CBI (2020) 9 SCC 636; coram: Justice M. Nagaprasanna; decided 28-11-2025.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition disposed with a direction to the concerned Court to hear the petitioner on his final departmental exoneration while finally considering his case; proceedings not quashed at this stage. ¶39

Mr K Rajanna Vs State of Karnataka by — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:49641 CRL.P No. 2113 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2113 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. K.RAJANNA S/O KENCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS FORMER ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE SIDDAPURA POLICE STATION BENGALURU R/O NO. 4/2, 3^RD CROSS DATTATREYA BADAVANE KEMPEGOWDA NAGARA BENGALURU – 19.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI PARAMESHWAR N.HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BENGALURU LOKAYUKTHA POLICE REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 01.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.C.NO.407/2016

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:49641 CRL.P No. 2113 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.13(1)(e) R/W SEC.13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988 BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE (LOKAYUKTA P.S. BENGALURU CITY) AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT BENGALURU CITY.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in Special C.C.No.407/2016 registered for offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) r/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶25

Heard Sri Parameshwar N. Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.B.Patil, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶26

Sri B.B.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Lokayuktha would submit that the proceedings before the concerned Court have advanced to a larger extent, charges have been framed and the matter is now at the stage of recording of the evidence. He would submit that there is no

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:49641 CRL.P No. 2113 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

warrant of interference of this Court by exercising its

¶31

jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner has a justification for approaching this Court at this stage. He submits that on the same set of facts, two proceedings have sprung, one on the departmental side and the other is, criminal law being set into motion. On the same set of facts, same documents and almost on the examination of the same witness, the petitioner has been exonerated and the exoneration of the petitioner has become final as the Disciplinary Authority accepts the said exoneration and closes the proceedings against the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the issue in the lis stands completely answered by the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ASHOO SURENDRANATH TEWARI v. CBI reported in (2020) 9 SCC 636 and submits that the concerned Court would not consider this aspect while passing the order.

¶33

The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are all admitted facts. In the light of the matter being pending at the stage of evidence and there being no

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:49641 CRL.P No. 2113 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

warrant at this stage to interfere with the proceedings, I deem

¶38

it appropriate to direct the concerned Court to hear the petitioner on the issue that he is already exonerated from the departmental enquiry and such exoneration has become final, while finally considering the case of the petitioner.

¶39

With the aforesaid direction, the *criminal petition stands disposed.

¶40

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶41

NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31 CT:SS

¶42

* corrected vide chamber order dated 23.12.2025

Mr K Rajanna v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr K Rajanna v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri S M Balaraju Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Soul Space Projects Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Phoenix Plasts Company Vs State Level Single Window Clearance Committee

Deepak Astickar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shanthalakshmi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ranganatha J Vs State of Karnataka