Arrest May Have Involved Procedural Defects, But Judicial Remand Cures the Defect - Successive Petitions U/S 482 CrPC Are Abuse of Law”: Karnataka High Court in ₹188 Crore ST Welfare Scam Case

Karnataka High Court dismissing a writ petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC that sought to quash criminal proceedings in a ₹188 crore scam involving funds earmarked for Scheduled Tribes Welfare. Justice M. Nagaprasanna underscored that "successive petitions under Section 482 CrPC without any change in circumstances amount to abuse of the process of law", thereby refusing to entertain the fresh challenge.

The Court ruled that since a previous petition filed by the same petitioner on identical grounds had already been dismissed, the instant plea was not only legally untenable but also an attempt to stall the criminal investigation. The Court’s refusal to interfere has cleared the way for prosecution in one of the most high-profile public fund misappropriation cases in Karnataka.

“Public Money Intended for Scheduled Tribes Was Siphoned Off Through Forged Documents and Dummy Entities”: Court Declines to Quash Proceedings in Economic Offence of a “Colossal Scale”

The Court noted that the scam, which is being investigated under Crime No. 118/2024, relates to fraudulent diversion of ₹188 crores from the Karnataka Maharshi Valmiki Parishista Pangadagala Abhivruddi Nigama, a public corporation formed to uplift the Scheduled Tribes in Karnataka. The bench observed that “public money meant for marginalized communities was fraudulently siphoned off through forged documents, fictitious board resolutions and shell companies”, and emphasized that there was prima facie material showing the petitioner’s involvement in the conspiracy.

The CID investigation had led to the seizure of over ₹8 crores in cash and 15 kilograms of gold from the petitioner’s premises. The petitioner, who was arrayed as Accused No. 1, claimed he was not named in the FIR and had been arrested illegally without a transit warrant from Hyderabad. He also contended that the grounds of arrest were never communicated. However, the Court found that such procedural arguments could not be a basis for quashing proceedings, especially when "the offence is economic in nature, involves public funds, and there exists prima facie material connecting the accused with the fraud."

The Petitioner Already Approached the Court Once: “Repetition of Grounds Cannot Justify Entertaining a Fresh Petition Under Section 482 CrPC”

The petitioner had previously filed W.P. No. 14252/2025, raising similar issues regarding arrest, procedural violations, and lack of direct monetary trail, which had been dismissed. In the present writ petition, he sought to reopen the same issues. The High Court reiterated that “a second petition under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable unless there is a substantial change in fact or law” and that "res judicata, though a principle of civil law, applies with full force in criminal jurisdiction when successive petitions are filed seeking the same relief."

The Court relied on State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani [(2017) 2 SCC 779] and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC 122],** observing that the power under Section 482 is to be exercised sparingly and cannot be converted into a platform for re-agitating rejected arguments.

Arrest May Have Involved Procedural Defects, But Judicial Remand Cures the Defect: Court Refuses to Entertain Quash Plea Based on Arrest Legality

The Court acknowledged that the CID had not obtained a formal transit remand from a Hyderabad magistrate before bringing the petitioner to Bengaluru. However, it found that this omission did not vitiate the subsequent judicial proceedings.

Justice Nagaprasanna held, "Once the accused is produced before a competent court and remanded to custody, minor procedural irregularities in the arrest process do not render the entire proceeding illegal."

Referring to P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement [(2019) 9 SCC 24], the Court reaffirmed that illegal arrest, per se, does not warrant quashing of criminal proceedings, especially when the accused has been remanded by a judicial authority and the investigation is backed by substantial material.

“Magnitude of the Offence and Gravity of Conspiracy Preclude Exercise of Jurisdiction Under Articles 226 and 227”: Constitutional Remedies Cannot Be Misused in Economic Offences

The petitioner had also invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, alleging violation of his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, arguing that his arrest and continued prosecution were illegal.

Rejecting the plea, the Court noted, "Article 21 rights cannot be invoked to derail a legitimate investigation into a fraud of this magnitude, especially when public interest and public funds are at stake." The bench emphasized that constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is not meant to act as a substitute for regular legal remedies when criminal trials are involved.

The Court made it clear that "economic offences involving public funds demand greater scrutiny, not leniency", and it would not allow its jurisdiction to be used as a tool for avoidance of trial.

High Court Dismisses Petition as Meritless, Holding it a Clear Abuse of Process

The Karnataka High Court concluded that the writ petition lacked merit, was repetitive of earlier dismissed contentions, and was primarily aimed at obstructing the criminal process. The Court refused to interfere with the prosecution, stating emphatically that “the criminal proceedings must go on uninhibited by such petitions, especially when they are thinly disguised efforts to delay justice.”

The ruling marks a firm judicial stance against procedural maneuvering in high-value economic offences and affirms that the judiciary will not tolerate repeated legal challenges aimed at frustrating legitimate investigations into frauds involving public funds.

Date of Decision: September 1, 2025