Karnataka High Court
Sri. Manjunathasa M vs State By Lokayuktha Police on 9 January, 2023
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10226 OF 2022
BETWEEN
SRI. MANJUNATHASA M
S/O MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
RAMANAGARA TRAFFIC POLICE STATION
RAMANAGARAM TOWN-562159.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI BHASKAR C R, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE
REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OFFICE OF THE LOKAYUKTHA
M S BUILDING
BANGALORE-560001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN
SPL.C.NO.40/2014 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 7, 8, 13(1)(d) READ WITH SECTION 13(2) OF
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT AGAINST THE PETITIONER
PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, RAMANAGARA.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03.01.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner accused under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceeding
in Spl. Case No.40/2014 registered by Lokayukta police
and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under
Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to
as 'Act').
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned special counsel for respondent.
3. The case of prosecution is that on the complaint
of Gilka Naik, the Lokayukta police registered a case on
10.02.2013, wherein it is alleged that the petitioner said to
be worked as Sub Inspector of Police in Ramanagar Traffic
police station, where respondent No.2-defacto
complainant, said to be the GPA holder of RC holder of
vehicle, filed an application for the release of Canter
vehicle. At that time, the petitioner said to be demanded
Rs.15,000/- as bribe. The complainant was not willing to
pay the bribe. Hence, he filed a complaint. Trap was laid
by the Lokayukta police and tainted money was recovered
form the petitioner-accused. It is alleged that Assistant
Sub Inspector demanded Rs.5,000/- for the PSI i.e. the
present petitioner, and also for himself and for the writer
of the police station. At the instructions of the petitioner,
the bribe was given to accused No.3 and later, it was given
to accused No.4. The police trapped the accused and
recovered the amount. Later, the petitioner-accused has
been arrested and the police after completion of
investigation filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and
2, which is under challenge.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
strenuously contended that the police department made an
enquiry and in the enquiry report, the petitioner is
exonerated from the charges. Therefore, when the accused
person is exonerated from the charges, the question of
proceedings against the petitioner amounts to abuse of
process of law. Hence, prayed for quashing the criminal
proceedings. In support of his contention, the learned
counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in W.P. No.19700/2018 (Gm-Res)
decided on 27.07.2021.
5. Per contra, the learned Special Counsel for
respondent objected the petition and contended that the
matter is at the fag end of the trial and therefore, this
Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence, which is already
recorded by the trial Court. Therefore, prayed for
dismissing the petition.
6. Having heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the parties, perused the records.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner is PSI and he has been
arraigned as accused No.2. Accused No.1 is ASI and
accused No.3 is said to be constable and accused No.4 said
is to be a private person and they have been charge
sheeted by Lokayukta police in the year 2014. The
charges were framed and presently, the case is set down
the examination of investigation officer. The order sheet
of the trial Court reveals that the trial Court has already
examined 25 witnesses and the matter is adjourned for
recording the evidence of investigation officer by
25.1.2023.
8. Of course, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has
quashed the criminal proceeding against the accused
persons on the ground that the accused persons were
exonerated from the charges in the departmental enquiry.
Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of
RADHESHYAM KEJRIVAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
AND ANOTHER reported in (2011)3 SCC 581, has held
that when in the Departmental Enquiry, the accused was
exonerated, the criminal proceedings cannot be continued
and criminal proceedings required higher standard of proof
at Para No.38(VIII) of the judgment.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, when the accused person is exonerated from the
charges in the departmental enquiry, it is difficult to prove
the same fact before the Court, which requires higher
degree of proof. Here, in this case, the petitioner has not
challenged the proceedings at the initial stage before
faming of charge or immediately after framing of charge.
This petition came to be filed only in the year 2022 after
examination of 25 witnesses by the prosecution and now
at the fag end of the trial, examination of only
investigation officer is left out. Therefore, this Court
cannot consider the statement of the witnesses made
before the police in the investigation, but requires to verify
the evidence adduced before the Court.
10. At the stage of fag end of the trial, the appellate
Court cannot appreciate the evidence recorded by the trial
court and it will prejudice the case of prosecution in the
trial. Therefore, in view of delay and latches on the part of
the petitioner, now at the fag end of the trial, this Court is
not inclined to quash the criminal proceeding. The
petitioner can take defence in the cross examination of
investigation officer and also he can lead evidence and
mark the enquiry report in his defence evidence.
11. Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioner is
dismissed. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the
matter within three months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CS
