Karnataka High Court | Grounds ‘Abandoned’ in First 482 Quashing Plea Cannot Be Revived in Subsequent Petition | ₹188 Crore Valmiki Nigama Conspiracy Allegations Must Go to Trial
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that the present challenge seeking quashing of proceedings and a declaration of illegality in the petitioner’s arrest is not maintainable and, in any event, does not warrant interference. The Court recorded that following consideration of the materials placed and the applicable legal standards governing successive petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), the correct course was to decline relief.
The petition was instituted invoking the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC (528 BNSS), praying to quash the entire criminal proceedings in Crime No.118 of 2024 pending before the XXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PC Act), Bengaluru, and the consequent charge‑sheet dated 05.08.2024 for offences under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC and Section 13(1) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.1.
The case emanates from a complaint lodged on 28.05.2024 by Karnataka Maharshi Valmiki Parishista Pangadagala Abhivruddi Nigama (the Corporation) about transactions concerning a newly opened account in Union Bank of India, M.G. Road Branch. The judgment records that the account was opened on 19.02.2024 in the name of the Corporation. It notes deposits totalling ₹187.33 crores by five transactions between 04.03.2024 and 21.05.2024 and 18 transfers between 05.03.2024 and 06.05.2024 to various entities totalling ₹94,73,08,500. The complaint text reproduced in the order details alleged forged letters and requests, purportedly bearing forged signatures of officials; it also refers to a “fake/forged board resolution” dated 30.03.2024 used to create a fixed deposit and overdraft and to transfer ₹40.10 crores on the same day. The Corporation’s steps on discovery are recited, including communication with bank officials and a demand for redeposit of the funds.
The investigation subsequently drew in persons not initially named, including the petitioner. On 11.06.2024, the petitioner’s Hyderabad residence was searched under a search and seizure warrant; the order records recovery of ₹8 crores in cash and several kilograms of gold. The petitioner was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate in Hyderabad for a transit warrant, which was returned on the ground that the petitioner was not then an accused named in the FIR. The CID transported the petitioner to Bengaluru by road, conducted a medical examination, and produced him before the Magistrate, who ordered police custody on 12.06.2024. The police thereafter investigated and filed a charge‑sheet, naming the petitioner as Accused No.1.
An earlier writ petition (W.P. No.14252 of 2025) filed by the petitioner to declare the arrest illegal and seek release had been dismissed by a co‑ordinate Bench on 12.06.2025. The present petition was filed about a week thereafter, seeking quashing of proceedings and, again, a declaration touching the arrest and remand.
The petitioner’s submissions are recorded to the effect that allegations against him are omnibus; that no amounts were credited to or debited from his accounts; that about ₹90 crores was allegedly diverted to fictitious entities which he is alleged to have helped create; and that he is said to have received part of the money in cash and gold through another accused, rendering the case one of conspiracy without direct allegations. He further contended that, as the transit warrant had been declined and he was not produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate at Bengaluru for close to 48 hours, his arrest became illegal; that grounds of arrest were not furnished; and that, absent a transit warrant, his transport to Bengaluru was unlawful. On these grounds, he sought quashing or a declaration that the arrest was illegal with a consequential release on bail.
The State opposed, submitting that the nocturnal search at 11:30 p.m. on 11.06.2024 yielded ₹8 crores and several kilograms of gold; that cash counting alone took about eight hours; that the transit warrant was returned because the petitioner was not then an accused; that the police had to carry ₹8 crores to Bengaluru and transport the petitioner by road; that, on arrival, he was medically examined and produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who ordered police custody; and that a charge‑sheet had since been filed arraying the petitioner as Accused No.1, described as a key conspirator in misappropriation of funds to the tune of ₹188 crores. The State also pointed out that similar grounds had already been urged and rejected in the earlier writ petition, which had attained finality; thus a second petition under Section 482 CrPC, absent any change in circumstance, was not maintainable.
On behalf of the complainant Corporation, learned senior counsel supported the State’s position, noting the gravity of the alleged offences, the impact on the public exchequer and the intended beneficiaries, and submitted that the case demanded a full trial rather than premature termination.
Issues framed by the Court included: whether a second petition under Section 482 CrPC on grounds available at the time of the first petition would be maintainable; if maintainable, whether the arrest could be held illegal resulting in release; and whether interference under Section 528 BNSS (482 CrPC) was warranted.
The Court recorded the sequence of events leading to registration of Crime No.118 of 2024 and the subsequent investigation. It noted the complaint’s allegation of forged instruments and unauthorized transfers. It summarized the search and recovery at the petitioner’s residence and the subsequent procedural steps culminating in police custody and charge‑sheeting of the petitioner as Accused No.1.
On the maintainability of a second petition under Section 482 CrPC, the Court set out governing principles and relied upon binding precedent to confine successive petitions to situations of demonstrable change in circumstance. The order cites decisions to the effect that, absent such change, issues that were available earlier cannot be re‑agitated through successive petitions seeking the same or substantially similar reliefs.
In addressing the scope of quashing after filing of a charge‑sheet, the Court referenced authority indicating that such quashing is a limited exception and not the norm and is attracted only when, taking allegations at face value, no offence is disclosed. The Court recorded that this was not such a case.
The Court’s reasoning is presented through direct extracts and statements recorded in the judgment. It states: “quashing of proceedings post charge sheet is an exception not a rule and can be invoked only where the allegations taken, on their face value, disclose no offence whatsoever. This is far from the case here. For the aforesaid reasons, the prayer with regard to quashment of proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC is to be rejected. Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.”
As to the bar on successive petitions, the Court reproduces the principle that it is not open to an aggrieved person to raise one plea after another under Section 482 when all such pleas were available at the first instance; allowing such practice would enable stalling of proceedings by filing one petition after another. The extracted passage records: “…it is not open to a person aggrieved to raise one plea after the other, by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C., though all such pleas were very much available even at the first instance. Permitting the filing of successive petitions under Section 482 Cr. P.C.… Such abuse of process cannot be permitted.”
The Court observed that entertaining a second petition in the circumstances would amount to impermissible review of the earlier order despite Section 362 CrPC barring such review, and recorded: “the court is not empowered to review its own decision under the purported exercise of inherent power.” It further recorded that, even on merits, there were no compelling reasons to quash at this stage; trial must proceed in accordance with law on its own merits and evidence.
In relation to the petitioner’s contention on illegality of arrest and non‑furnishing of grounds of arrest, the order records that in the earlier round a co‑ordinate Bench had already dismissed the petitioner’s challenge, and that both sides had not produced documents at this stage to support the assertion regarding grounds of arrest. The Court noted that the petitioner had been refused bail earlier and that multiple cases were pending involving similar allegations, and declined to grant relief on that ground.
The Court’s conclusions are recorded as follows: “From the above discussion, the following inexorable conclusions emerge: (i) The second petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS is neither maintainable nor entertainable, unless founded upon demonstrable change in circumstance. (ii) Grounds that were manifestly available at the time of first petition, cannot be exhumed later, to prop up a second petition. (iii) In the light of the grave allegations, voluminous material and triable questions of fact, this Court cannot wield its extraordinary jurisdiction to stifle proceedings at their threshold.”
The Court further held: “In the result and for the reasons elaborated hereinabove, this Court finds no scintilla of merit in the present petition. Law cannot bend to repeated challenges, devoid of new substance nor it can ignore the gravity of allegations that undoubtedly wants an adjudication in a full blown trial.” The order concludes with the direction: “Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri Rajesh Mahale, Senior Advocate for Sri Ashwin Kumar H., Advocate.
For the Respondents: Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, Additional State Public Prosecutor; Sri Vikram Huilgol, Senior Advocate, along with Sri Shishira Amarnath, Advocate.
Case Title: G Satyanarayana Varma AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No.17876 of 2025 (GM‑RES), High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru.
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna.
