Varalakshmi. P Vs the State of Karnataka

KARTHIK K S/O KUMAR K AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, MANAGER OF SRI WRIGHT HOMES PVT LTD KUVEMPUNAGARA, MYSORE-570023 R/AT NO.226, 12^TH CROSS, ARAVINDNAGARA, MYSORE-570023

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. LETHIF B, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:20392 CRL.P No. 2217 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

R2 IS SERVED)

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR, ANNEXURE-A IN CRIME NO. 23/2022 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 POLICE, I.E., KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA P.S., MYSORE ON 23/12/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE 3^RD ADDITIONAL SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE, MYSORE, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 7(a) OF P.C. ACT.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.3 has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

¶27

Procedure to discharge her in Cr.No.23/2022 of Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Mysuru, for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'PC Act').

¶28

For the sake of convenience, parties are

¶29

referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20392 CRL.P No. 2217 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Accused No.3 has sought quashing of the

¶33

criminal proceedings against her, contending that the allegations made against her are false. She has not made any demand for bribe nor has recovered money from the petitioner. At the time of complaint, she was working as the group 'D' employee in E-Khata branch of MUDA as a contract worker. Her work involved, moving documents and files between the offices of E-Khata branch of MUDA and such other work entrusted by her higher officers. Accused No.3 was not even present at the place of trap. She was standing near the copier, when she was summoned by the police.

¶34

There is no nexus between her and complainant. The allegations against her are baseless and concocted. The concerned police have included her to further their case. She was not aware of the transaction between other two accused. No work of complainant was pending with her and she has no powers to discharge the official duties.

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:20392 CRL.P No. 2217 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Prima facie , the allegations made in the complaint does

¶39

not attract the provisions of Section 7(a) of PC Act. No incriminating material is collected against her. After the registering of case, her services are terminated. In the above facts and circumstances continuation of the proceedings amount abuse of the process of the Court and hence the petition.

¶40

In support of his arguments, learned counsel for

¶41

petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:

¶42

(i) Soundarajan Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police ( Soundarajan )¹

¶43

(ii) Yeneti Apparao Vs. State of A.P Rep. by the Inspector of Police ( Yeneti Apparao )²

¶44

(iii) Sri.B.K.Srinivas Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. ( B.K.Srinivas )³

¶45

(iv) Shakeel Ahammada Vs. The State of Karnataka ( Shakeel Ahammada )⁴

¶46

1 Crl.A.No.1592/2022 Dt: 17.04.2023

¶47

2 (2007) ALD 183: 2007 ALT CRI 136

¶48

3 Crl.P.No.925/2023 Dt: 05.03.2023

¶49

4 W.P.No.709/2018 Dt: 02.02.2018

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20392 CRL.P No. 2217 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

On the other hand, learned Standing counsel representing respondent No.1 Lokayuta Police submitted that complainant is Manager of Sri Wright Homes Private Ltd Company. It has formed a layout consisting of 95 sites. The owner of the said company, Shri Venugopal wanted to get Khata of seven sites made out in his name and gave application to MUDA. Complainant was entrusted with their work of getting the Khata changed. However, when he met accused No.1 Ranganna and requested for issue of challan for depositing the fees, he demanded bribe of ₹20,000/- and agreed for ₹14,000/- and issued challan. Though complainant deposited the fees in the bank through the challan, accused No.1 made it clear to him that unless the bribe amount is paid it would not be made out. Therefore, he filed the complaint.

¶53

A trap was laid. When complainant paid ₹14,000/- to accused No.1, after counting them, he returned ₹7,000/- to the complainant to give him

¶54

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20392 CRL.P No. 2217 of 2023

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

afterwards. He called accused No.3 Varalakshmi and gave ₹7,000/- to her with a direction to get the relevant files. In turn, accused No.3 went to accused No.2 Srinivas and handed him over ₹7,000/- and got the files from him and gave to accused No.1. After getting the files, accused No.1 received balance of ₹7,000/- from complainant and handed over the papers, transferring the Khata in the name of Venugopal. After getting the signal, the investigating officer secured accused Nos.1 to 3 and drawn trap Mahazar. The hand wash of all the three accused gave positive result for presence of phenolphthalein, indicating receipt of tainted notes by them. The tainted notes are recovered from the possession of accused Nos.1 and 2. The investigation is going on. The order quashing criminal proceedings against accused No.2 is challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and stay is granted. The FSL

¶57

report is awaited. In the light of prima facie material, it is not a case for quashing the criminal proceedings against accused No.3 and pray to dismiss the petition.

¶58

7 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:20392 CRL.P No. 2217 of 2023

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶62

On the basis of complaint filed by respondent No.2, the Lokayukta police have registered case in Cr.No.23/2022 and taken up investigation. In the complaint, it is alleged that complainant is working as Manager in Sri Wrights Homes Private Ltd since four years. His company has formed a layout by name Krishnadhama Nagara in Srirampura village of Mysuru consisting of 95 sites. For getting Khata of site Nos.33, 34, 35, 71, 73, 74 and 81, the owner of the company S. Venugopal, gave application to Mysuru Urban Development Authority ('MUDA' for short) on 22.9.2022 and entrusted the said work to him. Accordingly, he submitted the applications on 22.09.2022 and met concerned clerk i.e, accused No.1 Ranganna. He demanded bribe of ₹20,000/- and said that only after which he would give challan for depositing the fees. Complainant requested even Ranganna to give the challan so that he would discuss with the owner and also informed him about his demand for ₹20,000/-.

¶63

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:20392 CRL.P No. 2217 of 2023

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Accordingly, when Ranganna gave the challan dated 07.11.2022. From the challan complainant could make out that though he has prepared the challan on 07.11.2022, intentionally, he did not issue the same as his demand for bribe was not met. When apprised of the same, Venugopal advised him to pay the challan amount and if accused No.1 Ranganna still insist for the bribe amount, he should record the conversation in the cell phone. Accordingly on 18.12.2022, complainant paid the amount in the bank through the challan and on 21.12.2022 at 2.30 p.m went to meet accused No.1 Ranganna. Since he was not there, he called Ranganna over his cell number 9741315688 and informed him about the payment of the fees through challan. Accused No.1 Ranganna replied that Khata will not be made unless bribe amount is paid.

¶66

In order to file complaint against him with the Lokayukta police, complainant decided to record his

¶67

9 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:20392 CRL.P No. 2217 of 2023

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

conversation with accused No.1 and on 22.12.2022 went

¶71

to MUDA office and met accused No.1 and offered ₹7,000/-. Accused No.1 received the notes, counted them and returned to the complainant saying that he want entire sum of ₹20,000 at one go. After much persuasion, accused No.1 agreed for ₹14,000/-, at the rate of ₹2,000 per site and promised to come on 23.12.2022 for which he agreed. This entire conversation was video recorded in his cell phone. Accordingly, complainant filed the complaint and offered to produce the cell phone and bribe money of ₹14,000/- if so advised by the investigating officer.

¶72

Based on the said complaint, the investigating officer registered the case in Cr.No.23/2022 and submitted the FIR to the Court in a sealed cover.

¶73

Investigation so far conducted reveal that the investigating officer after registering the case summoned 2 independent responsible witnesses and in their presence

¶74

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:20392 CRL.P No. 2217 of 2023

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

mahazar was drawn. When complainant along with shadow, witness met accusedNo.1, on his demand, handed over the tainted notes of ₹14,000/-. After counting them, he returned ₹,7000/- to the complainant to pay after his work is done. He called accused No.3 and gave her ₹7,000/- tainted notes and directed her to get the concerned file. In turn, she went to the chamber of accused No.2 and handed over ₹7,000/- tainted notes to him and brought the file from him and handed over to accused number one. In turn accused number one handed over the relevant documents to complainant and received balance of ₹7,000 tainted notes.

¶77

After getting requisite signal, the investigating officer apprehended accused Nos.1 to 3. Their hand wash gave positive result for presence of phenolphthalein indicating that they have received and dealt with the tainted notes. From the possession of accused No.1 ₹7,000/- tainted notes were recovered. When accused

¶78

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:20392 CRL.P No. 2217 of 2023

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

No.3 was summoned to the chamber of accused No.1,

¶81

after coming to know that trap is laid, he threw ₹7,000 tainted notes on the table of accused No.1 and they were also seized. Trap was drawn. Statements of accused Nos.1 to 3 were recorded. The investigation so far conducted clearly make out a strong prima facie case against all the persons, including the petitioner.

¶82

The quashing of criminal proceedings against accused No.2 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.925/2023 is stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl)No.55558/2024. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a case for quashing criminal proceedings initiated against petitioner/accused No.3.

¶83