IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana High Court Limitation | Litigants Cannot Entirely Blame Advocates for Procedural Delays: Supreme Court Family's Criminal Past Cannot Dictate Passport Eligibility: Madhya Pradesh High Court Double Presumption of Innocence Bolsters Acquittal When Evidence Falls Short: Calcutta High Court Upholds Essential Commodities Act TIP Not Mandatory if Witness Testimony  Credible - Recovery of Weapon Not Essential for Conviction Under Section 397 IPC: Delhi High Court University’s Failure to Amend Statutes for EWS Reservation Renders Advertisement Unsustainable: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Quashes EWS Reservation in University Recruitment Process Seniority Must Be Calculated From the Date of Initial Appointment, Not Regularization: Madras High Court Rules Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Mere Association Not Enough for Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Per Kanal Compensation for Land Acquired for Nangal-Talwara Railway Line, Dismisses Railway’s Appeal No Work No Pay Principle Not Applicable: Orissa High Court Orders Reinstatement and Full Back Wages for Wrongfully Terminated Lecturer No Assault, No Obstruction, Only Words Exchanged: Bombay High Court Quashes Charges of Obstruction Against Advocates Under Section 353 IPC Matrimonial Offences Can Be Quashed Even if Non-Compoundable, When Genuine Compromise Is Reached: J&K HC Plaintiff Entitled to Partition, But Must Contribute Redemption Share to Defendant: Delhi High Court Clarifies Subrogation Rights in Mortgage Redemption Labeling Someone A 'Rowdy' Without Convictions Infringes Personal Liberty And Reputation: Kerala High Court

Serious allegations of corruption demand thorough investigation Against Karnataka Bar Council Chairman:  Karnataka HC Refuses to Quash FIR

28 September 2024 11:55 AM

By: sayum


Karnataka High Court in Criminal Petition No. 3666 of 2024 dismissed a plea to quash an FIR filed against Vishal Raghu, Chairman of the Karnataka State Bar Council, and others for allegedly misappropriating funds during a State Level Advocates' Conference in Mysuru. Justice M. Nagaprasanna ruled that the allegations, which involve misuse of public funds, require a full investigation, rejecting the petitioners’ attempt to have the criminal proceedings quashed.

The FIR was filed following allegations by S. Basavaraj, another member of the Karnataka State Bar Council, that funds amounting to over Rs. 3.2 crore were misappropriated during the Advocates' Conference held in August 2023. Basavaraj's complaint alleged fraudulent payments to non-existent vendors and the creation of fake bills. Despite internal resolutions and an audit, the complainant insisted that a proper investigation was necessary, leading to the FIR and subsequent court proceedings.

The key issue was whether the FIR, filed under Sections 120B, 403, 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, and 477A of the IPC, should be quashed at the preliminary stage. The petitioners, including the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Bar Council, argued that the funds were spent following resolutions passed by the Council, and that there was no misappropriation.

Justice Nagaprasanna, however, held that the case involved serious disputed facts that required thorough investigation. The Court highlighted the complainant’s evidence, including voice messages and receipts, suggesting that large sums of money were paid in cash without proper documentation. The Court emphasized that such allegations, especially in cases involving corruption, should not be dismissed without allowing the investigation to proceed.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which cautioned against quashing criminal proceedings when serious factual disputes are involved. Justice Nagaprasanna ruled that the petitioners’ claims of resolutions and internal settlements could not justify preemptive dismissal of the investigation. The Court dissolved any interim relief granted earlier and allowed the investigation to continue.

The Karnataka High Court's decision underscores the importance of allowing investigations in cases of alleged corruption, especially when substantial public funds are involved. By rejecting the petition to quash the FIR, the Court affirmed that such matters must be thoroughly examined through proper legal channels.

Date of Decision: September 27, 2024

Vishal Raghu & Others v. State of Karnataka

Similar News