SRI.BHARATESH KUMAR S.M. vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55767
WP No. 8858 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010190152021




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

WRIT PETITION NO. 8858 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. BHARATESH KUMAR S.M,
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA P.S,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
SHARADA SAMUDHAYA BHAVANA,
SHANKARAMATTA ROAD
HASSAN - 573 201.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SATISH K, ADVOCATE)








AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. THE STATE OF KARNTAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
VIDANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
CHIKKAMGALAURU - 577 101.




Digitally signed
by ASHWINI
MAYAPPA
MAVARAKAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55767
WP No. 8858 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010190152021


4. SRI. T.R. UMESH RAJ ARAS
S/O LATE T.N. RANGARAJ ARAS
AGED ABOUT 54 YAERS,
OWNER OF J.P. BAR (ARASUBAR)
TEGUR GATE, MARUTHI NAGAR
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC. 482 OF THE CR.PC
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE R-1 TO 3 IN
RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.14.3.2016
ANNEXURE-A IMPUGNED COMPLAINT DTD.4.7.2020
ANNEXURE-B AND IMPUGNED FIRST INFORMATION IN CRIME
NO.03/2020 ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Sri.Satish K., learned counsel for the
petitioner, Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned Additional Government
Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri.B.B.Patil, learned counsel
for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Notice issued to respondent
No.4 returned with an endorsement ‘deceased’.

2. Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code with
the following prayers:

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55767
WP No. 8858 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010190152021


“ The petitioner therefore most humbly prays that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
a. CALL for records from the respondent No.1 to 3 in
respect of the impugned order dated 14.03.2016
(Annexure-A) impugned complaint dated 04.07.2020
(Annexure-B) and impugned First Information in Crime
No.3/2020 (Annexure-C);
b. ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING the impugned
order dated 14.03.2016 bearing No.CiAaaSuE 14
st
SeeLoU 2016 passed by the 1 respondent (Annexure-
A), impugned complaint dated 04.07.2020 given by
th
the 4 respondent (Annexure-B) and the impugned
First Information Report dated 04.07.2020 vide Crime
rd
No.3/2020 registered by the 3 respondent
(Annexure-C) and all further proceedings pending on
rd
the file of the 3 respondent, in the interest of justice
and equity;
c. PASS any other order including the cost of the writ
petition, in the interest of justice and equity.”

3. Facts of the case are as under:

3.1. Petitioner herein was appointed as Assistant
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in the year 2012 and
thereafter promoted as Deputy Commissioner of Commercial
Taxes on 27.09.2019 and he was discharging his work at
Hassan.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55767
WP No. 8858 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010190152021



3.2. An order came to be passed by Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes, Bengaluru on 07.10.2016 where under
present petitioner was placed in-charge of the post of Deputy
Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Chikkamagaluru as well.
The petitioner while discharging the duty of in-charge of Deputy
Commissioner of Chikkamagaluru, noted that complainant in
the case on hand was running a bar and restaurant in the name
of J.P.Bar and Restaurant who did not pay the tax amount in
time. Therefore, a petition under Section 45 of Karnataka
Value Added Tax Act, 2003 came to be issued and Manager of
the HDFC Bank was directed to deduct the money from the
account of the complainant and remit the same in favour of
Assistant Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru. Bank took out a
Demand Draft in a sum of Rs.1,286/- and same was remitted to
the account of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes.

3.3. While so investigating the matter, petitioner has
noticed that owner of J.P.Bar and Restaurant had not paid tax
for the year 2015-16 as well. Therefore, reassessed the tax
payable by J.P.Bar and Restaurant by issuing reassessment
order on 06.07.2020 by exercising the power under Section

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55767
WP No. 8858 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010190152021


29(1) read with Section 36 and 72 of Karnataka Value Added
Tax Act, 2003.

3.4. In this regard, according to the complainant,
complainant filed a false complaint against the petitioner
stating that petitioner demanded sum of Rs.75,000/- as illegal
gratification in the guise of allowing discount in the tax amount.
A crime came to be registered in this regard in Crime
No.3/2020.

4. Based on the complaint, a raid team was formed by
Lokayukta Inspector and trap was laid which was successful
and colour test stood positive and tainted money was recovered
from the custody of the petitioner herein and a case came to be
registered.

5. Very registration of the case is called in question in
this petition by the petitioner by contending when the petitioner
has reassessed the tax payable by the J.P.Bar and Restaurant,
in order to wreck the vengeance, a false complaint came to be
filed by the complainant in active collusion with the Lokayukta

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55767
WP No. 8858 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010190152021


officials and trapped the petitioner with ill motive and thus
sought for quashing of the proceedings.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the
grounds urged in the petition would contend that petitioner is
innocent and he was only in-charge Deputy Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes, Chikkamagaluru and he noticed non-
payment of tax by J.P.Bar and Restaurant and initiated action
and for his good deeds, a false complaint is the benefit he got
and thus sought for quashing the pending proceedings.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
would support the filing of the case and further investigation
thereof by contending that there is a successful trap and matter
needs to be investigated thoroughly and appropriate report is
to be filed.

8. Having heard the arguments of both the parties,
this Court noted that demand and acceptance is prima facie
found from the material on record, which would require the
investigation to continue.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55767
WP No. 8858 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010190152021



9. Whether at all, alleged demand was to show any
favour to the complainant by misusing the official position or
not is a matter of investigation; so also the Whether the trap
was motivated or not is also a part of investigation and trial.

10. Thus, desisting from holding a mini trial, when the
material on record, at this stage is perused, this Court is
satisfied that the grounds urged in the petition are hardly
sufficient to quash the pending proceedings.

11. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
dismissed
i. Petition is .

ii. However, if any adverse report is filed, petitioner is
at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with
law.

iii. Observations made in the course of this order, shall
not affect the rights of the petitioner.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
KAV/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11