MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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

Latest Legal News