MUDAKAPPA MAHALING MAGADUM S/O MAHALING MAGADUM vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17566
CRL.P No.102677 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185132026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102677 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
MUDAKAPPA MAHALING MAGADUM,
S/O. MAHALING MAGADUM, AGE: 31 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PRIVATE SCHOOL, TEACHER (PRIVATE JOB),
R/O. KOLIGUDDA VILLAGE,
TQ. RAYABAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591220.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI AVINASH M. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH ATHANI POLICE STATION,
REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DHARWAD-580008.
2. VIRESH T. DODAMANI S/O. T. DODAMANI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: POLICE OFFICER,
R/O. DSP DCRB, BELAGAVI,
TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590016.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1 & R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.
528 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.537/2025 PENDING
ON THE FILE BEFORE THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ATHANI
ARISING OUT OF COMPLAINT DATED 31.01.2023 AND FIR IN CRIME
NO.0041/2023 AND CHARGESHEET WHICH IS REGISTERED BY
ATHANI POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
U/S.120(B), 420, 417, 411, 426, 406, 116, 201, 34 R/W. OF IPC
AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.11 AND ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS PURSRANT TO THEREIN IN RESPECT OF THE
PETITIONER HEREIN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court
of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17566
CRL.P No.102677 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185132026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri. Avinash M.Angadi, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y.Devareddiyavara, learned HCGP
for the respondents – State.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.11
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash the entire
proceedings in C.C.No.537/2025, pending on the file of learned
Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani, arising out of Crime
No.41/2023 of Athani Police Station, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 417, 411, 426, 406, 116,
201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case in nutshell
are as under:
The defacto complainant lodged a complaint on
31.01.2023, wherein he alleged that the petitioner and other
persons in furtherance of criminal conspiracy committed
malpractice in the KPTCL Junior Assistant Recruitment
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17566
CRL.P No.102677 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185132026
Examination conducted by the Karnataka Examination Authority
(‘KEA’, for short) on 07.08.2022 from 10:30 a.m. to 12:30
noon, wherein, accused No.1 to 18 have conspired with each
other before the examination and planned to leak the question
paper and provide answers to selected candidates through
electronic devices, microphones, microchips, mobile phones
and sim cards with an intention of making illegal monetary
gain. Further in order to clear the exams, the accused persons
have demanded a sum of ₹8,00,000/- to 10,00,000/- per
candidate and advance amounts were collected from certain
candidates. Accused No.1 is alleged to have arranged electronic
devices and microchips while accused No.2 allegedly undertake
the responsibility of arranging the leakage of the question
papers. Accused No.5 to 7 have assisted in obtaining and
leaking the question paper. Accused No.3 procured sim cards
for use in the devices. Accused No.8 to 12 have prepared
answers to the leaked question paper and communicated the
answers by phone to accused No.13 to 17 during the
examinations. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged the
complaint. Taking exceptions to the same, the
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17566
CRL.P No.102677 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185132026
petitioner/accused No.11 has filed this petition seeking to
quash the entire proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
contended that in the complaint and FIR, there is no specific
allegation against the petitioner and the entire allegation is
against other accused persons. The Investigating Officer by
believing the words of co-accused statement, the name of the
petitioner is included in the charge sheet. Hence, learned
counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in
Surinder Kumar Khanna vs. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of
Revenue Intelligence reported in (2018) 8 SCC 271 and the
judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Criminal Petition No.3982/2025 and Criminal Petition
No.102155/2023.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP vehemently contended
that the petitioner is involved in heinous offence and there are
serious allegations made against him. The petitioner is involved
in criminal conspiracy. Thus, it requires full-fledged trial.
Hence, learned HCGP prayed to dismiss the petition.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17566
CRL.P No.102677 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185132026
6. Perused the material available on record. The fact
that the KEA conducted examination for the post of Junior
Assistant in KPTCL Department on 07.08.2022 in between
10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. In the complaint and in the charge
sheet, it is alleged that all the accused persons made criminal
conspiracy in order to leak the examination question papers
and provide answers to selected candidates through electronic
devices, microchips, mobile phones and sim cards with an
intention of making illegal gain. The specific allegation against
the present petitioner is that he, along with accused No.3, 8 to
10 and 12 prepared answers to the leaked question paper and
communicated the answers by phone to accused No.13 to 17
during the examination. The allegation made against the
petitioner is grave in nature and against the entire society. At
this juncture, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment
passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal
Petition No.3982/2025 and contended that based on the co-
accused statement, the present petitioner is implicated in the
case. Hence, relied upon in Surinder Kumar Khanna case cited
supra, which reads as under:
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17566
CRL.P No.102677 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185132026
“11…………….
12. ……………
“It would be noticed that, as a result of the
provisions contained in Section 30, the confession
has no general evidentiary value, because whatever
is considered by the court as evidence, including
circumstances and probabilities, must meet the
definition of evidence under Section 3 of the Indian
Evidence Act. While a confession may be considered
as evidence in a broad sense due to Section 30, it is
not evidence as defined under Section 3 of the Act.
As such, in dealing with a case against an accused
person, the court cannot rely solely on the
confession of a co-accused. Instead, it must begin
with other evidence adduced by the prosecution and,
after forming its opinion on the quality and effect of
such evidence, may refer to the confession for
assurance in reaching a conclusion of guilt. That is
the effect of Section 30. This view has also been
expressed by this Court in Kashmira Singh v. State
of M.P. [1952 SCR 526: AIR 1952 SC 159: 1952 Cri
LJ 839], wherein the Privy Council decision in
Bhuboni Sahu v. R. [1949 SCC OnLine PC 12: (1948-
49) 76 IA 147] was cited with approval.”
7. Learned counsel further relied upon the judgment in
Criminal Petition No.102155/2023 as under:
8. “ The afore narrated facts are not in dispute. What
leads the petitioner into the web of crime in CC
No.2036/2021 is the voluntary statement tendered by
accused Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner appears to be
dragged into these proceedings without any rhyme or
reason. It is germane to notice the fact that on the very
same grounds, that accused 4 and 5 were dragged into
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17566
CRL.P No.102677 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185132026
the web of crime like the petitioner, the co-ordinate
Bench in Criminal Petition No.104281 of 2022 has
quashed the proceedings. While so quashing, the Co-
ordinate Bench has considered the charge against the
petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5, the charge against
accused No.3-the petitioner is similar. This Co-ordinate
Bench has held as follows:
“7. The petitioner was not named in the complaint nor an
accused in the FIR, he is for the first time roped in as an
accused in the charge sheet, it is germane to notice column
No.17 – the summary of the charge which reads as follows:
“F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è PÁ®A: 12gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ DgÉÆæ £ÀA:1 ²ªÀ¥Àà
¥sÀQÃgÀ¥Àà ¥ÀqÉ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ £ÉÃzÀݪÀ£ÀÄ ¸À£ï 2020 £Éà ¸Á°£À ¥Éưøï E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ
J¦¹ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÁV Cfð ¸À°è¹ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÀæªÉñÀ ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ°è 1:5 gÀAvÉ
CºÀðvÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ, zÉÊ»PÀ ¥ÀjÃPÉëUÁV DAiÉÄÌAiÀiÁVzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀ£ÀzÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ :
19.12.2020 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀqÉÃzÀ zÉÊ»PÀ ¸ÁªÀÄxÀåð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉúÀzÁqsÀåðvÉ ¥ÀjÃPÉë
[ET/PST]
UÉ ºÁdgÁV CºÀðvÉAiÀiÁUÀ¨ÉÃQvÀÄÛ. DzÀgÉà ¸ÀzÀj DgÉÆæ £ÀA : 1
²ªÀ¥Àà ¥sÀQÃgÀ¥Àà ¥Àr¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ FvÀ£ÀÄ vÁ£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ°è ¥Á¸À ªÀiÁr
¸ÀgÀPÁj GwtðªÁUÀĪÀÅ¢¯Áè CAvÁ ªÀÄ£ÀUÉÆAqÀÄ, ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÁ£ÀÆ
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ°è ¥Á¸À ªÀiÁr ¸ÀgÀPÁj £ËPÀjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß VnÖ¹PÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÉA§
zÀÄgÀÄzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ºÁUÀÆ zÀĪÀiÁðUÀðzÀ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ £ËPÀj VnÖ¹PÉÆÃqÀgÉà vÀ¥ÀÄà
CAvÁ UÉÆwÛzÀÝgÀÆ ¸À»vÀ, PÁ®A 12 gÀ°èAiÀÄ 5£Éà DgÉÆævÀ£ÁzÀ ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ
ªÀÄzÀ£À PÀjUÁgÀ EvÀ£À ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ 3 £Éà DgÉÆævÀ£ÁzÀ §¸ÀªÀgÁd
zÀ±ÀgÀxÀ zÉêÀgÀªÀĤUÉ ºÉý CªÀ£À ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄzÀªÀ£ÁzÀ 4£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀiÁzÀ
§¸ÀªÀgÁd AiÀÄ®è¥Àà ªÉîªÀÅnÖAiÀÄ UɼÉAiÀÄ£ÁzÀ ºÁUÀÆ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ 2£ÉÃ
DgÉÆævÀ£ÁzÀ D£ÀAzÀ zÀ±ÀgÀxÀ PÀļÀÆîgÀ¤UÉ ¸ÀzÀj zÉÊ»PÀ ¸ÁªÀÄxÀåð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
[ET/PST]
zÉúÀzÁqsÀåðvÉ ¥ÀjÃPÉë UÉ ºÁdgÁV ¥Á¸ï ªÀiÁr¹ PÉÆqÀ®Ä ºÉýzÀÄÝ
C®èzÉà ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß DgÉÆæ £ÀA : 2£ÉÃzÀªÀgÀÄ ¥Á¸À ªÀiÁr¹zÀgÉà CªÀ¤UÉ
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17566
CRL.P No.102677 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185132026
ºÀt ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÉýzÀAvÉ ¸ÀzÀj 1£Éà DgÉÆævÀ£ÀÄ E£ÀÄß½zÀ £Á®ÆÌ d£À
DgÉÆævÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ¸ÀAUÀ£ÀªÀÄvÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ, ªÀiÁ£Àå ¦æ¤ì¥sÀ¯ï ¹eÉ (Q«) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
eÉJAJ¥sÀ¹ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀgÀªÀgÀ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ G¥À£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éưøï
oÁuÁ ºÀ¢ÝAiÀÄ ¥ÉÊQ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ Dgï J£ï ±ÉnÖ QæÃqÁAUÀtzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ :
19.12.2020 gÀAzÀÄ DgÉÆæ £ÀA : 2£ÉÃzÀݪÀ£ÀÄ zÉÊ»PÀ ¸ÁªÀÄxÀåð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
zÉúÀzÁqsÀåðvÉ ¥ÀjÃPÉëUÉ DgÉÆæ £ÀA.1£ÉÃzÀªÀ£ÀAvÉ £Àn¹ ºÁegÁV ¥ÀjÃPÉë ¥Á¸À
ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝzÀjAzÁ DgÉÆæ £ÀA.1£ÉÃzÀݪÀ¤UÉ ¸ÀgÀPÁj £ËPÀjUÉ CºÀð£ÁVgÀÄvÁÛ£É.
§A¢zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F CºÀðvÉ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä 1£Éà DgÉÆævÀ£ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrPÉÆAqÀ
MlÄÖ gÀÆ.2.30.000/- ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß DgÉÆæ £ÀA : 2,3,4 ºÁUÀÆ 5 £ÉÃzÀݪÀjUÉ
¤ÃrzÀÝ£ÀÄß CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä°èAiÉÄà ºÀAaPÉÆAqÀÄ RZÀÄð ªÀiÁr G½zÀ
ªÀ±À¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀ MlÄÖ 1,50,000/- ºÀt ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ ¹QÌzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ
¸ÀgÀPÁj PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄ VnÖ¹PÉƼÀî®Ä DgÉÆæ £ÀA.1£ÉÃzÀªÀ£ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ CPÀæªÀĪÁV
PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁV vÀªÀÄä ¯Á¨sÀPÁÌV DgÉÆæ £ÀA.2 jAzÀ 5£Éà ¸ÀgÀPÁgÀPÉÌ
ªÀAa¹zÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀ.
PÀ®A.419,465,468,471,420,109 ¸ÀºÀPÀ®A.34 L¦¹.”
8. A perusal at the summary of the charge sheet
would clearly indicate that the offences against the
petitioner and accused No.5 are in common as there is no
pointed allegation independently alleged against the
petitioner in the summary of the charge sheet. Therefore, it
becomes necessary to notice the judgment rendered by the
Co-ordinate Bench qua accused No.5. The Co-ordinate
Bench has held as follows:
nd
“The FIR was lodged by the 2 respondent alleging
that on 19.12.2020, the accused No.2 impersonated
accused No.1 and appeared in the physical test conducted
for selection to the post of ‘Police Constable’. The Police,
after investigation, submitted the charge sheet arraigning
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17566
CRL.P No.102677 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185132026
the present petitioner as accused No.5 on the basis of the
statement of co-accused and also the voluntary statement
of accused No.5 that he has facilitated accused No.2 in
impersonating accused No.1 and received a sum of
Rs.40,000/- towards his share out of which he has spent
Rs.20,000/-. The learned Magistrate after accepting the
charge sheet, took cognizance of the offences punishable
under Sections 419, 465, 468, 471, 420, 109 read with
Section 34 of IPC.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the charge sheet filed on the basis of the
statement of co-accused and the voluntary statement in
the absence of corroborative material is impermissible. In
support, he places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Surinder Kumar Khanna
(cited supra).
3. On the other hand, the learned HCGP
appearing for the respondent-State submits that the
statement of the co-accused, the voluntary statement of
the accused No.5 and also the recovery of Rs.20,000/-
from the custody of accused No.5, clearly establishes that
the accused No.5 facilitated accused No.2 in
impersonating accused No.1 and the Police after
investigation have rightly filed the charge sheet and the
same does not warrant any interference.
4. I have examined the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the parties.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17566
CRL.P No.102677 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185132026
5. The charge sheet was filed on the basis of
the statement of accused Nos.1 and 2 and also on the
voluntary statement of accused No.5 who is alleged to
have confessed that he has facilitated accused No.2 in
impersonating accused No.1 and has received a sum of
Rs.40,000/- towards his share. The charge sheet material
also discloses a sum of Rs.20,000/- was recovered from
the accused No.5. However, there is no corroborative
material produced alongwith charge sheet accept the
statement of the co-accused and the voluntary statement.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surinder
Kumar Khanna supra has held as follows:
“It would be noticed that as a result of the
provisions contained in Section 30, the confession
has no doubt to be regarded as amounting to
evidence in a general way, because whatever is
considered by the court is evidence; circumstances
which are considered by the court as well as
probabilities do amount to evidence in that generic
sense. Thus, though confession may be regarded
as evidence in that generic sense because of the
provisions of Section 30, the fact remains that it is
not evidence as defined by Section 3 of the Act.
The result, therefore, is that in dealing with a case
against an accused person, the court cannot start
with the confession of a co-accused person; it
must begin with other evidence adduced by the
prosecution and after it has formed its opinion
with regard to the quality and effect of the said
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17566
CRL.P No.102677 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185132026
evidence, then it is permissible to turn to the
confession in order to receive assurance to the
conclusion of guilt which the judicial mind is about
to reach on the said other evidence. That, briefly
stated, is the effect of the provisions contained in
Section 30. The same view has been expressed by
this Court in Kashmira Singh v. State of
M.P. [Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P., 1952 SCR
526 : AIR 1952 SC 159 : 1952 Cri LJ 839] where
the decision of the Privy Council in Bhuboni Sahu
case [Bhuboni Sahu v. R., 1949 SCC OnLine PC 12
: (1948-49) 76 IA 147 at p. 155.] has been cited
with approval.”
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid
case has held that the Court cannot start with the
confession of a co-accused person and begin with other
evidence adduced by the prosecution and after it has
formed its opinion with regard to the quality and effect of
the said evidence, then it is permissible to turn confession
in order to receive assurance to the conclusion of the guilt
which the judicial mind is about to reach on the said other
evidence.
7. In the present case, the charge sheet filed
only on the basis of the statement of the co-accused and
the voluntary statement of the accused No.5. In the
absence of any corroborative material to substantiate the
allegation that the accused No.5 facilitated the accused
No.2, the charge sheet filed is without any substance.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17566
CRL.P No.102677 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185132026
ORDER
Criminal petition is allowed.
The impugned proceedings in C.C.
No.2036/2021 pending on the file of the Principal
Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad insofar it relates to
the petitioner-accused No.5 is hereby quashed.
8. The allegation against accused No.5 was also
a receipt of Rs.20,000/-, as is alleged against accused
No.4, the petitioner. In the light of quashment of the
proceedings against accused No.4 on allegations being
same, it would enure to the benefit of the petitioner as
well. In the light of what is aforesaid, the following:
ORDER
Criminal petition is allowed.
The impugned proceedings in C.C. No.2036/2021
pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC,
Dharwad insofar it relates to the petitioner-accused No.4 is
hereby quashed.”
8. The perusal of the judgment relied upon by the
petitioner more importantly, the judgment rendered by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court, the facts involved in the
present case and the facts involved in those cases are different.
Whereas in the instant case, there are grave allegations against
the present petitioner. At this juncture, the petitioner is
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17566
CRL.P No.102677 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185132026
disputing the question of fact that cannot be gone into under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The contentions now raised by the
petitioner can be taken during the course of trial. Hence, there
is no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to
pass the following:
ORDER
The Criminal Petition is dismissed .
Pending IAs., if any, stand disposed of as
they do not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
CLK /CT-AN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38