Supreme Court Orders Fresh Investigation in Case of Alleged Property Dispute and Fraud; Transfer Petition Disposed    |     Vague Allegations of Improper Cross-Examination Insufficient for Recalling Witnesses: Supreme Court Upholds High Court Order    |     Honorable Acquittal in Criminal Proceedings Invalidates the Dismissal Based on Identical Allegations: Allahabad HC    |     Supreme Court Orders Fresh Selection for Punjab Laboratory Attendants; Eliminates Rural Area Marks    |     Entire Story of the Prosecution is a Piece of Fabrication: Supreme Court Acquits Accused in High-Profile Kidnapping Case    |     Madras High Court Overstepped in Directing Framing of Charges, Says Supreme Court; Stays Proceedings    |     Foreclosing Right to File Written Statement Without Serving Complaint Too Harsh: Supreme Court    |     Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Rash Driving Case; Compensation Reduced Due to Age and Health Factors    |     Prayers for Setting Aside Maintenance Order and Refund Not Maintainable Under Section 25(2) of Domestic Violence Act: Supreme Court    |     Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused on Grounds of Parity with Co-Accused and Prolonged Custody    |     Serious allegations of corruption demand thorough investigation Against Karnataka Bar Council Chairman:  Karnataka HC Refuses to Quash FIR    |     Probationers must be heard; a punitive action without inquiry is against natural justice: Punjab & Haryana HC Reinstates Judicial Officer    |     Refining Crude Soybean Oil is a Use of Goods Within the State, Attracting Entry Tax: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Arbitral Awards Cannot Be Overturned for Merely Better Views: Supreme Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Appeals Over Encroachment Claims Due to Improper Demarcation Report    |     Teasing by Children Cannot Be Considered Grave and Sudden Provocation Under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC: Gauhati High Court Upholds Life Sentence for Man Convicted of Murdering a 7-Year-Old Boy    |     ITC Blocking Under Rule 86A Cannot Exceed Available Balance in Electronic Credit Ledger: Delhi HC    |     Writ under Article 226 not maintainable when alternative remedies are available" – Delhi HC: Delhi HC Dismisses Writ Petition for FIR and Protection    |     Lack of Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Does Not Automatically Vitiate Proceedings: Calcutta HC    |     No Development Without Conveyance: Statutory Rights of Housing Society Prevail: Bombay High Court    |     Pecuniary Jurisdiction Based on Highest Valued Relief in Specific Performance Suit: Andhra Pradesh HC    |     Delay in Sale Deed Registration After Full Payment Cannot Justify Denial of Auctioned Property: Andhra Pradesh HC    |     Civil Judge Lacked Jurisdiction to Hear Suit Under Section 92 CPC; District Court is the Competent Forum: Allahabad High Court    |     Children are not only the assets of the parents but also of society: Kerala HC on Protests Involving Minors    |     A cheque issued as security does not represent a legally enforceable debt: Madras HC Acquits Accused in Cheque Bounce Case    |    

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