Dismissed¶39

Sri Girish Babu H T v. the State by

Karnataka HC25 Nov 2025WP/56086/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (M.I. Arun, J., 25.11.2025) in WP No. 56086 of 2016 (GM-RES): writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 Constitution r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C. by Girish Babu H.T., Motor Vehicle Inspector, seeking quashing of Lokayuktha Police FIR Crime No.01/2016 dated 12.10.2016 and complaint dated 12.10.2016 arising from an alleged bribe trap; Court held prima facie case made out, guilt or defective trap to be decided at trial, declined Section 482 indulgence, dismissed petition, reserved liberty to challenge future police report. Keywords: quashing of FIR, Section 482 Cr.P.C., bribe trap, Lokayuktha, prima facie case, matter for trial.

What did the court decide?

Whether the petitioner has indeed taken the bribe as alleged, or whether respondent no.1-Police failed to trap him as contemplated in law, is a matter to be decided in the trial.

Sri Girish Babu H T Vs the State by — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:48674 WP No. 56086 of 2016

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 56086 OF 2016 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. GIRISH BABU H.T. S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS WORKING AS MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 313.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE REP. BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 313.

¶14

[AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 11.01.2023]

¶15

SRI. MANOJ S/O SRI. MAHADEVAIAH MAJOR R/AT MALLAYYANAPURA VILLAGE CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 313.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

¶18

R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:48674 WP No. 56086 of 2016

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.01/2016 DATED 12.10.2016 AT ANNEXURE-A REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AND THE COMPLAINT DATED 12.10.2016 AT ANNEXURE-B PENDING ON THE FILE OF RESPONDENT NO.1 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREOF AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner was an RTO officer. On the ground that he has demanded bribe, a trap was laid by respondent no.1-Police and he has been trapped while receiving the bribe. The case of the petitioner is that, he never took the bribe and the proceedings recorded at the time of trap consist lot of inconsistencies and they do not prove the fact that petitioner took any bribe amount as alleged. On the said ground, the following prayer is made:

¶26

"a) CALL for records from the Respondents;

¶27

b) ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING the impugned First Information Report in Crime

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48674 WP No. 56086 of 2016

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

No.01/2016 dated 12.10.2016 (Annexure-A) registered by the 1^st Respondent and the Complaint dated 12.10.2016 (Annexure-B) pending on the file of the 1^st Respondent and all further proceedings thereof, in the interest of justice and equity;

¶31

c) PASS any other Order including the cost of the Writ Petition, in the interest of justice and equity;"

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that the trap was successful and prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶33

Admittedly, there is an allegation of bribe made against the petitioner. It is the contention of respondent no.1 that petitioner has been trapped while taking the bribe. The documents produced prima facie reveal that there was a trap laid by respondent no.1-Police and it is their submission that the trap has been successful. Whether the petitioner has indeed taken the bribe as alleged or respondent no.1-Police have failed to trap him as contemplated in law, it is a matter to be decided in the trial. As the documents make out a prima facie case, I

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:48674 WP No. 56086 of 2016

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

am of the opinion it is not a fit case for showing any indulgence under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶38

For the aforementioned reasons, the criminal

¶39

petition is hereby dismissed .

¶40

It is needless to state if after due investigation a police report is filed, the petitioner will have the liberty to challenge the same in the manner known to law.

¶41

Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

¶42

SD/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶43

PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Sri Girish Babu H T v. the State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Girish Babu H T v. the State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahadevaiah @ Mahadevappa Vs M P Nagaraj

Sri. Arvind Kambar Vs State of Karnataka by

Mahadevaiah Vs Shivalingaiah M C

Devaraju D Vs State by Akkur Police Station

Smt S K Nirmala Vs the State of Karnataka

Rani Manorama B S Vs the State of Karnataka