Karnataka High Court refuses to quash case against police inspector accused of holding ₹8 lakh linked to a dacoity

The petitioner, a police inspector arrayed as accused No. 7, challenged the State Government’s order dated 23 July 2021 granting sanction for his prosecution and sought to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 27847/2021, arising from Crime No. 103/2020 of City Market Police Station.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner gave a blue cover to Satish for safekeeping; Satish later handed it to the police, who recovered ₹8,00,000 from it.

Satish’s and Shravan’s statements and the recovery were the material relied upon against the petitioner.

The petitioner argued that he had been falsely implicated and was not present at the police station when the incident occurred; the State contended that the statements and recovery supplied prima facie grounds to proceed.

1. Whether the sanction order and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed in the exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, given the witness statements and recovery relied upon by the prosecution.

2. Whether assessing the petitioner’s alleged connection to the recovered money at this stage would require the High Court to conduct a mini-trial.

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Court applied the principle that the High Court should not conduct a mini-trial when considering whether to quash criminal proceedings; where the prosecution material provides a prima facie basis to proceed, disputed questions—including the credibility of witness accounts and proof of a recovery—are for the trial court to determine.

The Court found that Satish’s account, Shravan’s statement, and the recovery of ₹8,00,000 together constituted prima facie material connecting the petitioner to the alleged offence.

Whether Satish was a stranger to the petitioner, whether the recovery was proved in accordance with law, and whether the petitioner was connected to the incident were matters that could not be resolved without assessing evidence at trial.

The Court therefore declined to express a final view on the petitioner’s role and concluded that the material did not justify quashing the proceedings.

The Court left the petitioner’s defences open and permitted him to apply for discharge, to be considered by the trial court in accordance with law.