Grounds Available At The Time Of First Petition Can’t Be Exhumed Later To Prop Up Second Petition: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court held that the grounds available at the time of First Petition cannot be exhumed later, to prop up a Second Petition.

The Court held thus in a Writ Petition seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings pending before the Trial Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “The second petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS is neither maintainable nor entertainable, unless founded upon demonstrable change in circumstance. … Grounds that were manifestly available at the time of first petition, cannot be exhumed later, to prop up a second petition.”

The Bench remarked that the law cannot bend to repeated challenges, devoid of new substance nor it can ignore the gravity of allegations that undoubtedly wants an adjudication in a full-blown trial.

Senior Advocate Rajesh Mahale appeared on behalf of the Petitioner while Additional State Public Prosecutor (ASPP) B.N. Jagadeesha and Senior Advocate Vikram Huilgol appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

The Respondent-Karnataka Maharshi Valmiki Parishista Pangadagala Abhivruddi Nigama represented by its General Manager was the Complainant in this case. In 2024, an account was opened in Union Bank of India in the name of Karnataka Maharshi Valmiki Parishishta Scheduled Tribes Development Corporation Limited. Immediately thereafter, the amount totalling Rs. 187.33 crores was deposited and transferred into the account of the Corporation by 5 transactions. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Corporation questioned the officers of the Bank about transfers and on questioning, Rs. 5 crores was immediately restored. Noticing some serious foul play, a complaint was registered by the Corporation before the High Grounds Police Station alleging gross irregularities and misappropriation inter alia, by the employees of the Bank.

Several persons who were not named in the crime were taken into custody and the Investigating Officer (IO) noticing the fact that certain amounts have emanated or dropped into the account of the Petitioner, approached his house. He was taken into custody and allegedly, about Rs. 8 crores of cash was found in his house, apart from several kilograms of gold. The Magistrate returned the request for transit warrant since the Petitioner was not named in the FIR. After medical checkup, the Petitioner was produced before the Magistrate who ordered him to be taken to police custody. The Petitioner, therefore, filed a Writ Petition, questioning his arrest and seeking his release.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “The concatenation of events discloses a conspiracy of staggering proportions. The complaint supra narrates how funds meant for the amelioration of the scheduled tribes were siphoned off into shadowy accounts. Most of the people who are now drawn as accused were not drawn as accused at that time. The accused were only 6 people who are officials of the Bank. Pursuant to registration of crime, the Police began to conduct investigation. The conduct of investigation leads to several arrests being made who were not named in the FIR. One such person was the petitioner.”

The Court noted that in the criminal proceedings, i.e., in the Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), the principle that a ground that was available to be taken at the outset not being taken cannot be permitted to be taken in a second Petition, becomes applicable, as fragmented Petitions would emerge on given up grounds.

“It can lead to several petitions being filed on each of the grounds that the petitioner would think of, after the dismissal of the petition, till he succeeds in one of the petitions. This is sans countenance”, it added.

The Court reiterated that successive Petitions under Section 482 of the CrPC, grounded upon pleas manifestly available at the first instance, are impermissible.

“To permit otherwise, would be putting a premium on fragmented litigation, and reducing the judicial process into a stratagem for delay. That being the situation, the accused was not at liberty to invoke the inherent jurisdiction, raising the ground/plea at a later point in time, by filing second petition. … the ground, on grounds of arrest and release on illegal arrest cannot be permitted to be agitated in the subject petition. In the light of the preceding analysis, I decline to entertain the subject petition, second in line, albeit, laced with a challenge to the entire proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./528 of the BNSS”, it observed.

The Court further remarked that the charge sheet paints the Petitioner not as a passive bystander, but as the very kingpin of the fraudulent design and the wealth of detail in the investigation, recovery of cash and gold and the labyrinth of transactions alleged are all matters demanding the crucible of full-blown trial.

“The case is shrouded with maze of facts. The money that had to be spent for upliftment of Scheduled Tribes, the avowed objective with which the Corporation was created, is allegedly swindled by the officers of the Bank, or the accused named in the charge sheet”, it also said.

Conclusion

The Court was of the view that quashing of proceedings post charge sheet is an exception not a rule and can be invoked only where the allegations taken, on their face value, disclose no offence whatsoever and this is far from the case here.

“For the aforesaid reasons, the prayer with regard to quashment of proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC is to be rejected. … In the light of the grave allegations, voluminous material and triable questions of fact, this Court cannot wield its extraordinary jurisdiction to stifle proceedings at their threshold”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.

Cause Title- G. Satyanarayana Varma v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.17876 OF 2025 (GM - RES)]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Rajesh Mahale and Advocate Ashwin Kumar H.

Respondents: ASPP B.N. Jagadeesha, Senior Advocate Vikram Huilgol, and Advocate Shishira Amarnath.

Click here to read/download the Judgment