Dismissed

Sri. S.M. Shivaharalayya v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Feb 2024WP/15981/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Deputy Superintendent of Excise trapped by Lokayuktha police for allegedly demanding and accepting Rs.15,000 sought quashing of the FIR under Article 226 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., claiming the complaint was retaliatory. With investigation completed and final report ready, quashing was refused; liberty to challenge the charge sheet was reserved.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; interim order vacated; liberty granted to challenge charge sheet after final report filed.

Sri. S.M. Shivaharalayya Vs the State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN WRIT PETITION NO.15981 OF 2022

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SRI. S.M. SHIVAHARALAYYA S/O LATE SOMANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶6

WORKING AS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, M/S. VORION DISTILLERIES, YESHWANTHPURA,

¶7

BANGALORE - 560 022.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. H. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTTY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND

¶12

ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS,

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA,

¶14

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOME, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

¶17

3 . THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶18

THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU - 01. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROSECUTOR.

¶19

4 . SRI. H.T.N. RAJU S/O LATE H.D.THATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT "LAKSHMINARASIHMA SWAMY NILAYA", BEHIND BALAJI THEATRE, HULIYAR TOWN, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 218.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2/STATE; SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3/LOKAYUKTHA; SRI. MRC MANOHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE R1 TO R3 IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.03.2016(ANNEXURE-A), IMPUGNED COMPLAINT DATED 02.12.2021(ANNEXURE-B) AND IMPUGNED FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.14/2021 DATED 02.12.2021(ANNEXURE-C).

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 30.01.2024 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the FIR in Crime No.14/2021 registered by the then ACB, present Lokayuktha police, Chitradurga district, for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "PC Act).

¶27

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

¶28

The case of the prosecution is that the respondent No.4 filed complaint to the Lokayuktha police alleging that he is doing a liquor business and is the owner of the S.L.N. Boarding and Lodging, Restaurant and Bar. The petitioner being Dy.S.P of Excise Department, Holalkere region, registered case against respondent No.4 for violation of the CL7 license. Accordingly, a case was registered in Crime No.37/2021-22 under the Karnataka Excise Act. The

¶29

¶30

petitioner said to be demanded Rs.15,400/- to do an official favour. The complainant was not willing to pay bribe. Hence, filed complaint to the ACB. Accordingly a trap was set up on 3.12.2021. Then on 3.12.2021 at 11 a.m, when the petitioner said to have accepted Rs.15,000/- bribe at Krishna Bhavan hotel, he was trapped and the amount has been seized. The investigation is under progress which is challenged by the petitioner.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended the complaint filed by the respondent No.4 is purely to take revenge against petitioner. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner for demand and acceptance of bribe. The petitioner has given explanation that he has not demanded any money from the complainant. The complaint came to be filed as a counter blast where the petitioner registered more than 6 cases against the respondent No.4, for violation of liquor license. There was balance of taxes to be payable by the respondent No.4. The accused himself field case against complainant just 7 days prior to the

¶32

¶33

complaint. When there is no demand and acceptance of money, the question of conducting investigation does not arises. Hence, prayed for quashing the FIR. In support of his contention the petitioner counsel relied upon the judgments of this court and the Madhya Pradesh high court.

¶34

Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.3 Sri.B.B.Patil, seriously objected the petition and contended that there is clear case of demand and acceptance for bribe by the accused. If at all it was a fine amount required to be collected from the complainant, what was the necessity for coming to the hotel and receiving money, why not in the office? The final report is ready, except obtaining the sanction. The investigation is already completed. Therefore, prayed for dismissing the petition.

¶35

Having heard the arguments, perused the records. On perusal of the complaint, where it is alleged by the complainant that he is running liquor business in various places and the petitioner being Dy.SP of Excise Department, Holalkere Region, he said to have registered various cases

¶36

¶37

against respondent No.4, for violation of the liquor license. A case was registered against the respondent No.4, therefore the petitioners said to be demanded bribe for not registering the cases against the respondent, frequently. He said to have demanded Rs.15,400/- and accordingly the respondent No.4 agreed to pay the same. But he lodged the complaint with Lokayuktha police where a trap was set up and the petitioner informed the complainant to come to the hotel and while he was accepting Rs.15,000/- he has been caught red handed. The amount was seized from the petitioner.

¶38

In respect of the demand, there is voice record which reveals the conversation between the petitioner and respondent No.4, where the petitioner was demanding money. The telephone conversation reveals the accused informed the complainant for an amount of Rs.15000/-, prior to the trapping and once again in telephone conversation, where the petitioner came to a hotel and the complainant went to the hotel and handed over Rs.15,000/-.

¶39

¶40

The petitioner said to have informed the complainant he should handover the amount to the driver but the complainant informed, if the amount is given to the driver, he may publish to everybody. Therefore, the petitioner himself is ready to accept the money. Accordingly, he received Rs.15,000/- from right hand and took in the left hand and kept it in his pocket, which was seized by the police by trapping.

¶41

No doubt there were cases registered against the respondent by the very petitioner for violation of the license and the respondent wanted to put an end to the unnecessary harassment. Therefore, when he approached the petitioner he demanded regular payment to the Excise Department for not disturbing the business. Accordingly, the money was demanded and accepted by the petitioner. The petitioner is the authority under the Excise Act.

¶42

The Co-ordinate Bench granted the interim stay, in the meanwhile the respondent counsel submits the police already completed the investigation and awaiting the

¶43

¶44

sanction. The investigation report was produced in a sealed cover, where the Lokayuktha police already completed the investigation and kept ready for filing the final report. There were 17 witnesses mentioned in the investigation report. The investigation was completed long back on 08.03.2023 itself. Such being the case, quashing the FIR at this stage is not correct. Whereas the petitioner obtained the bribe money as a bribe or a payment towards the fine amount for having registered the case or not, has to be considered by this court, only after verifying the final report. The petitioner was not able to verify the case final report prepared by the police for arguing the matter on the charge sheet. Once the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner will get copy of the charge sheet materials as per section 207 of Cr.P.C., and he can urge the grounds on merits, based upon the charge sheet materials . Therefore, I am of the view, at this stage, when the final report was already kept ready, about 10 months back by the respondent police, this court cannot quash the FIR, at this stage. Hence, I hold the petitioner has not made out case for quashing the FIR, at this stage.

¶45

¶46

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following

¶47

order:

¶48

This petition is hereby dismissed. However liberty is granted for challenging the charge sheet after filing the final reports.

¶49

Interim order is hereby vacated.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

AKV CT:SK

Sri. S.M. Shivaharalayya v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. S.M. Shivaharalayya v. the State of Karnataka

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

Satish K, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Chandrappa Ambiger Vs Sri. Apparao S. Navale

Sri Chidanandamurthy Ts Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri G M Mallikarjuna Vs Sri K Kotresh

Abhishesk Kumar Keshri Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Sri Sandeep Katty Sudhindra Vs State by