Dismissed

Sri H B Harish v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC19 Jan 2024CRL.P/2791/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition to quash FIR and restraining order to add the petitioner as an accused under Section 7(a) PC Act during investigation, the Special Court held that the FIR quashing prayer is not maintainable at this stage as investigation is pending and the IO is entitled to seek further evidence despite the petitioner's name not being in the initial FIR.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of FIR and order adding petitioner as accused is dismissed.

Sri H B Harish Vs State of Karnataka by — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:2728 CRL.P No. 2791 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2791 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. H.B.HARISH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE BYRAPPA, R/A NO.48, NEAR BASAVESHWARA TEMPLE HAGADUR, WHITE FIELD, BENGALURU - 560 066. WORKING AS REVENUE INSPECTOR, O/O ASST. REVENUE OFFICER BBMP, K.R. PURAM SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU -560 066.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ S. SAPPANNAVAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR-10 BENGALURU URBAN DIVISION KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

SRI. SUBHASHA S S/O SOUNDARAJ, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/A NO.225, MARAMMA TEMPLE, NEAR URDU SCHOOL, BELATTURU COLONY, BELATTURU, BENGALURU - 560 067.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.B.PATIL, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR R1/LOKAYUKTHA)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:2728 CRL.P No. 2791 of 2023

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO i) QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CR.NO.79/2022 ON THE FILE OF XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 7(a) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.2) IS CONCERNED.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Though the matter came up for hearing on

¶22

I.A No.1/2023, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same has been heard finally.

¶23

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the FIR in Crime No.79/2022 and the requisition made by the police on 31.12.2022 for adding the petitioner as additional accused in the aforementioned crime, registered by Lokayukta police, Bangalore City, for the offences punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act')

¶24

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned special counsel for respondent No.1.

¶25

The learned counsel for petitioner has contended, the entire allegation made against accused No.1, was caught red handed, while accepting the bribe. The petitioner's name is not

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:2728 CRL.P No. 2791 of 2023

¶28

shown either in FIR or in the complaint and not even in the trap Mahazar. But the Investigating Officer has made a requisition for adding the petitioner as accused No.2, which was allowed, even though there was no demand and acceptance. The shadow witnesses also have not stated anything about this petitioner. The conversation held between accused No.1 and complainant also not mentioned about this petitioner. The 'Khatha' was already kept ready after the signature. Therefore, question of demand and acceptance of money does not arises against this petitioner. He has been falsely implicated. During the course of his official duty, he has signed and kept the document. Therefore, it cannot be said, he has demanded any bribe. The petitioner was falsely implicated by the Investigating Officer. Hence, prayed for allowing the petition and quashing the application for requesting to add this petitioner as accused.

¶29

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has objected the petition and contended, that the accused No.1 is the Tax Collector. This petitioner is the assistant of accused No.1. He used to visit the spot and prepare the reports and the entire documents were kept in his Almirah. The accused No.1

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:2728 CRL.P No. 2791 of 2023

¶32

used to give Rs.15,000/- per month, to this petitioner, as extra salary and often used to pay money. The same was stated by accused No.1, in his voluntary statement made during the trap Panchanama. Therefore, the Investigating Officer made requisition to the court for adding this accused for the purpose of investigation. Therefore, until completion of investigation, FIR cannot be quashed against him. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.

¶33

Having heard the arguments, perused the records. On perusal of the complaint, of course, there is no complaint made against this petitioner, either of demand or acceptance. But the trap Mahazar reveals, after the trap of accused No.1, while accepting the bribe, the voluntary statement has been recorded by the Investigating Officer. During his statement, the accused No.1, has stated that he used the assistance of this petitioner by paying Rs.15,000/- per month, as a salary to him. Apart from that, as and when required, this petitioner used to receive money from the accused No.1. Whether, the petitioner is assisting the accused No.1 for the purpose of work of accused No.1, are all matter of investigation. The voluntary statement of the accused, though it is not admissible, except for recovery

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:2728 CRL.P No. 2791 of 2023

¶35

of any material evidence against the accused No.2. The matter is under investigation. Therefore, merely because the name of the petitioner name is not mentioned in the FIR, that itself is not a ground to quash the order of permission granted by the court for investigating the matter. The Investigating Officer is at liberty to investigate the matter and file the final report, if he has found any material evidence against this petitioner. Such being the case, it is not a fit case for quashing the FIR or permission granted by the court against this petitioner for investigation, at this stage. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following.

¶36

The petition is hereby dismissed .

¶37

In view of dismissal of this petition, I.A.No.1/2023 does

¶38

not survive for consideration.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner is granted liberty to file fresh petition, if charge sheet is filed against this petitioner.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

AKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51 CT:SK

Sri H B Harish v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H B Harish v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Philip William George Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Parthasarathy Sampathkumar Vs Zuri Energy Pvt. Ltd.

Sri Sunil G Vs Police Inspector (S.H.O)

Puran Ram Devasi @ Puranram Vs State of Karnataka by

Vijay Kumar H M Vs State by Parappana

Suresh Jain Vs State of Karnataka