Dismissed

State of Karnataka v. Rakesh S K @ Rakesh Gowda

Karnataka HC11 Feb 2026CRL.RP/1633/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by the State seeking to set aside a discharge order. The discharge was granted by the Trial Court as the government servant accused was not properly sanctioned under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for offences alleged to have been committed during official duty.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision petition dismissed; related IA No.1/2025 disposed of.

State of Karnataka Vs Rakesh S K @ Rakesh Gowda — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:8210 CRL.RP No. 1633 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1633 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR.M.V., HCGP)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High court of Karnataka

¶13

RAKESH S K @ RAKESH GOWDA, S/O. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.59E, SHIVANAPURA VILLAGE, BENGALURU - 562 162.

¶14

WORKING AS FDA, IN THE OFFICE OF TAHASILDAR, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE SPP FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 27.09.2024 PASSED IN SPL.CC.NO.850/2024, ON THE FILE OF COURT OF LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND THE SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:8210 CRL.RP No. 1633 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

(CCH-71) FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 504,506,341 OF IPC, U/S 3(1)(r),(s),3(2)(va) OF SC/ST ACT, 1989.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

State is before this Court in this Criminal revision

¶24

petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.PC with a prayer to set aside the order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the Court of LXX Additional City

¶25

Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru City, in Spl.C.No.850/2024.

¶26

Heard the learned HCGP for the State.

¶27

Respondent hearin was charge sheeted for

¶28

offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 341 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short 'SC/ST (POA) Act') and case was registered against him in Spl.C.No.850/2024 before the Court of LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:8210 CRL.RP No. 1633 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Special Judge, Bengaluru. He had filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.PC before the Trial Court in Spl.C.No.850/2024, which was opposed by the prosecution. The Trial Court, vide the impugned order, has allowed the discharge application. Aggrieved by the same State is before this Court.

¶33

Petitioner is working as a First Division Assistant

¶34

in the office of Tahasildar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru. The allegation against him is that on 01.03.2024, at about 01.30 p.m. when CW.1-Sidhayya along with CW.5-Lakshmi Narayana and CW.6-Nagaraju had gone

¶35

near the office of Tahasildar to verify the revenue documents of the property bearing Sy.No.41 and 56 of Venkatala Village within the jurisdiction of Yalahanka Police Station, petitioner who was on duty was standing near the window of the record room in the office of Tahasildar in Yalahanka. It is alleged that petitioner signaled to CW.1 and CW.5 with his hand and called them inside the record room and when they entered the record

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:8210 CRL.RP No. 1633 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

room, he allegedly closed the door of the record room and abused them referring to their caste and also assaulted CW.1 with a pen and caused injuries. Undisputedly, the incident-in-question had taken place within the premises of the Tahasildar office and it is also not in dispute that

¶39

respondent/accused was on duty on the said date.

¶40

The alleged incident-in-question had taken place inside the record room of the Tahasildar office and the material on record would go to show that there is no access to the public inside the record room. The CCTV footage of the record room was secured and after perusing the same, the Deputy Commissioner, who is the Competent Officer to issue sanction order, has rejected the prayer made by the prosecution to accord sanction for prosecuting the respondent. Section 197 of Cr.PC, which gives protection to a government servant has been properly appreciated in the present case by the Trial Court, which has rightly held that in the absence of necessary sanction, the petitioner who is a government

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:8210 CRL.RP No. 1633 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

servant cannot be prosecuted for the alleged offence based on the allegations found against him and the material collected by the police during the course of investigation.

¶44

Under the circumstances, I do not find any

¶45

illegality or irregularity in the order impugned which calls for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Criminal

¶46

revision petition is dismissed .

¶47

In view of the disposal of this Criminal revision

¶48

petition, I.A.No.1/2025 will not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the same is disposed of.

¶49

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶50

KVR

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

State of Karnataka v. Rakesh S K @ Rakesh Gowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Karnataka v. Rakesh S K @ Rakesh Gowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Ravishankar Vs Sri. Manjunath. a

Meera Moideen Vs Sri B S Harish

Murthy. B Vs H. Govindhaiah

Maruthi H B Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N B Seetharamu Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Suneel Kamath Vs Mrs. Radhika Kamath