BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a state government official in a corruption trap case, ruling that exoneration in a departmental inquiry does not automatically eclipse criminal prosecution.
Justice M Nagaprasanna observed while dismissing a petition filed by Geeta R, Superintendent at the Office of the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies in Chitradurga, who sought to quash the criminal case against her after being cleared in a departmental inquiry.
The court held that there is no straight-jacket formula requiring criminal proceedings to be dropped merely because a government employee has been exonerated in departmental proceedings arising from the same set of facts.
The judge said the impact of departmental exoneration on a criminal trial depends on the nature of the evidence in each case. If the departmental inquiry concludes that key elements of the offence, such as demand and acceptance of a bribe in corruption cases, are completely absent, continuation of a criminal case based on identical material may amount to abuse of the legal process.
However, the court said that where prima facie evidence exists in the criminal case, including recovery of tainted money, recorded conversations indicating demand for a bribe, or forensic corroboration, departmental exoneration cannot override criminal prosecution. The court added that this principle particularly applies in cases where a public servant is caught red-handed accepting a bribe.
The case relates to a 2018 trap operation in which the then Anti-Corruption Bureau allegedly caught Geeta R receiving Rs 15,000 as a bribe for registering the Raitha Bandhu Cooperative Society in Channagiri taluk of Davanagere district.
The Lokayukta police later investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet against her. Meanwhile, the inquiry officer in the departmental proceedings cleared her of the charges.
Following the departmental exoneration, Geeta R approached the High Court seeking to quash the criminal case, arguing that both the departmental inquiry and the criminal trial were based on the same set of facts.
Rejecting her plea, the court said that while departmental findings may influence the criminal proceedings in certain circumstances, such as when a trap fails, or there is no direct evidence of demand or acceptance of a bribe, they do not automatically extinguish criminal prosecution.
“In essence, departmental exoneration may influence, but does not automatically extinguish criminal prosecution. Each case turns on its own factual and evidentiary matrix,” the court observed.