The High Court quashed an FIR against a Special Tahsildar for accepting a bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, holding that the petitioner neither demanded nor accepted the gratification, citing Supreme Court precedents on the necessity of demand and acceptance.
Quashing of FIR in Crime No.23/2022
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.925 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. B. K. SRINIVAS S/O LATE B. S. KUMARASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, ZONAL OFFICE NO.3 AND E-KATHA, MUDA MYSORE, MADAGALLI, MYSURU - 571 130. (UNDER SUSPENSION), R/AT NO.47/11, 12, 13, AMAR AMBREESH ENCLAVE, 2ND CROSS, MADAGALLI, 2ND STAGE, MYSORE - 570 026.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T.R.GIRISHA, ADVOCATE )
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH LOKAYUKTA POLICE REPRESENTED BY SPP OFFICE,
2
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . SRI. KARTHIK K S/O KUMAR K AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, MANAGER OF SRI. WRIGHT HOMES PVT. LTD., KUVEMPUNAGARA, MYSORE - 570 023. R/A NO.226, 12TH CROSS, ARAVINDANAGARA, MYSORE - 570 023.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLIANT IN CR.NO.23/2022 DATED 23.12.2022 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT LOKAYUKTA POLICE MYSURU PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE A AND B PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE 3rd ADDITIONAL SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE, MYSURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.7(A) OF THE PC ACT 1988 (AMENDMENT ACT 2018).
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 15.02.2024 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR in Crime No.23/2022 registered by the Lokayuktha Police, Mysuru, now pending on the file of the III Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Mysuru, for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amendment Act 2018) (hereinafter referred to as 'P.C. Act').
4
alleged that his Company approached Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) for khata of site Nos.33, 34, 35, 71, 73 and 74. His company owner filed an application before MUDA on 22.9.2022 and no khatha was changed yet. The complainant was assigned for the said purpose. In spite of completion of three months, there was no progress in the application. Hence, the complainant approached accused No.1-Ranganna on 16.12.2022. For that, accused No.1Ranganna demanded Rs.20,000/- for issuing the challan. After receiving the challan, the complainant went back. In spite of depositing the fee by challan, accused No.1 Ranganna has not changed the khatha. Hence, on 18.12.2022, once again, after depositing the amount, he met Ranganna on 21.12.2022 at 2.30 p.m. He was not found and therefore, the complainant contacted through the mobile phone. For that, accused No.1 told that if his fee were not paid, the khatha would not be done. It is further alleged that when the complainant was trying to give Rs.7,000/-, accused No.1-Ranganna returned it and asked to give Rs.20,000/-. Finally, the complainant agreed to give
5
Rs.2,000/- per site, totalling Rs.14,000/-. For that, accused No.1 agreed. The complainant was not Willing to pay the bribe, and hence, filed the complaint.
6
Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1724 , and also in the case of
7
SOUNDARAJAN Vs. STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIGILANCE, ANTICORRUPTION, DINDIGUL in Crl.A.No.1592/2022
decided on 17.04.2023 , etc.
8
demanded Rs.2,000/- per site for issuing khatha and as on the date of demand on 21.12.2022, the complainant agreed to give the bribe amount demanded by accused No.1Ranganna. Subsequently, on 23.12.2022, the complainant went along with shadow witness as per the instruction of the team of police for trap. He has given Rs.14,000/- to accused No.1-Ranganna and accused No.1-Rangannna received Rs.14000/- and taken out Rs.7,000/- and kept in his pocket and given the remaining amount of Rs.7,000/- to accused No.3 and ordered to bring the file. Accordingly, accused No.3 said to be given the amount to the present petitioner-accused No.2 and brought the file. Subsequently, accused No.3 was caught hold by the police, and after knowing that, the petitioner-accused No.2 threw the money received from accused No.3 on the table of accused No.1, which clearly reveals that the petitioner-accused No.2 neither demanded any bribe from the complainant nor accepted the bribe from the complainant.
9
STATE OF TELENGANA reported in (2022) 4 SCC 574 ,
that the demand and acceptance is sine qua non for constituting the offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act.
YASHWANTH B.S. Vs. STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA in Criminal Petition No.1099/2023 dated 18.05.2023 has quashed the FIR against the accused by relying upon the
10
judgments in the case of Shanthamma and also the case of Bhajan Lal . Here, in this case, absolutely, there is no demand by the petitioner-accused No.2 by any gratification from the complainant. In fact, the petitioner-accused No.2 never met the complainant at any point of time. Apart from that, there is no work pending with the petitioner. Accused No.1-Ranganna has demanded the bribe and accepted it. As per the explanation of the petitioner-accused No.2, accused No.3 given some amount to him which was the loan given to accused No.1-Ranganna and it was repaid. Such being the case, the question of investigating the matter and filing charge sheet against the petitioner-accused No.2 is unsustainable. The petitioner accused No.2 neither demanded nor accepted bribe from the complainant. Even as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the caseof Neeraj Dutta , cited supra , if the petitioner-accused No.2 accepted any bribe without demand from the complainant, then it will constitute an offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, but none of the ingredients are made out in the trap panchanama.
11
HARYANA AND OTHERS Vs. CH. BHAJAN LAL AND
OTHERS reported in 1992 SCC Suppl. (1) 335 .
The Criminal Petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime No.23/2022 registered by Lokayuktha police, Mysuru, pending on the file of the III Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Mysuru, for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amendment Act 2018), is hereby quashed.
Sd/JUDGE
CS CT:SK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether demand and acceptance are sine qua non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act?
Whether the petitioner demanded or accepted any bribe in the present case?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)Relied on¶40
NEERAJ DUTTA Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1724 · Who else cites this
Soundarajan v. StateRelied on¶40
SOUNDARAJAN Vs. STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIGILANCE, ANTICORRUPTION, DINDIGUL in Crl.A.No.1592/2022 decided on 17.04.2023
K. Shanthamma v. State of TelanganaRelied on¶41
K SHANTHAMMA Vs. STATE OF TELENGANA reported in (2022) 4 SCC 574 · Who else cites this
Yashwanth B.S. v. State by LokayukthaReferred¶43
YASHWANTH B.S. Vs. STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA in Criminal Petition No.1099/2023 dated 18.05.2023
State of Haryana and Others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and OthersRelied on¶48
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS Vs. CH. BHAJAN LAL AND OTHERS reported in 1992 SCC Suppl. (1) 335 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. B. K. Srinivas
The State of Karnataka through Lokayukta Police
High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru
Sri. Karthik K
Natarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
