Crl.P filed to quash proceedings under Section 8 of PC Act where private individuals were accused of offering bribe to a private complainant to withdraw a complaint regarding corruption.
The impugned FIR registered by the Respondent No.1 for offences punishable under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Amendment) 2018 are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5014 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
AMENDED THE CAUSE TITLE AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 31.10.2023.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.5/2021 REGISTERED BY THE ACB P.S., TUMAKURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 8 OF PC ACT (AMENDMENT 2018) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE 7TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU INITIATED ON THE COMPLAINT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners had challenged the first information
report registered by the erstwhile Anti Corruption Bureau (henceforth referred to as 'ACB' for short) in Cr.No.5/2021 for the offences punishable under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, (Amendment) 2018, pending
consideration before the VII Additional and District Judge, Tumakuru.
NC: 2023:KHC:39489 CRL.P No. 5014 of 2021
ready and asked the respondent No.2 to remain silent and that he would meet him. The respondent No.2 claimed that the said conversation was recorded on his phone.
such mistake would not be repeated. The Panchayath Development Officer purportedly informed him that they will make all arrangements. Later, Mr. Prabhakar informed that Panchayath Development Officer had given a sum of Rs.20,000/- and that he would pay another sum of Rs.5,000/- and offered to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-. The respondent No.2 alleged that he did not accept it and he claimed that this conversation was also recorded on his phone. On 11.06.2021 at 02.30 p.m., a friend of the respondent No.2, Mr.Manjunath went to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-. The respondent No.2 demanded Mr.Manjunath as to who asked him to pay the amount. Then said Mr. Manjuanth informed him that Panchayath Development Officer had paid it to Mr. Prabhakar, who inturn paid to him, to be paid to the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 refused to accept it and informed Mr. Manjunath to call Panchyath Development Officer. Therefore, Mr.Manjunath called Panchyath Development Officer and switched on the speaker of the mobile phone. The respondent No.2 claimed that he recorded the said
conversation on his mobile and when the respondent No.2 informed her that Mr. Prabhakar had paid a sum of Rs.20,000/-, the Panchyath Development Officer, said that she would speak to Mr. Prabhakar. The respondent No.2 alleged that he returned the money to Mr.Manjuanth. He further claimed that the public funds meant for use for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community under the Fourteenth Financial Project of Jatti Grama Panchayath, was used for other purposes and when the respondent No.2 filed an application for an enquiry, the Panchyath Development Officer and members of
Panchayath tried to bribe him by paying a sum of Rs.25,000/-. He therefore, requested the then ACB to take suitable action against the accused/petitioners.
NC: 2023:KHC:39489 CRL.P No. 5014 of 2021
Being aggrieved by the registration of first information
report, against the petitioners, this petition is filed.
NC: 2023:KHC:39489 CRL.P No. 5014 of 2021
7. Though the respondent No.2 was served, he
has remained absent.
counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
whether any offences punishable under any provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, (Amendment) 2018, is attracted or not, cannot be accepted, as Chapter III of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, relates to offences of public servant being bribed or they demanding any illegal gratification.
the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, (Amendment), 2018 is not attracted.
NC: 2023:KHC:39489 CRL.P No. 5014 of 2021
petitioners under the provisions of the Karnataka
Lokayukta Act, 1984.
Sd/JUDGE
HJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Amendment) 2018 is attracted when a private person is offered a bribe to withdraw a complaint.
Whether the prosecution of petitioners for an offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is maintainable.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. Prabakar C.D.
Smt. Manjamma
State of Karnataka
Sri. A.V. Nagaraju
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
