Karnataka High Court
Sri. S.M. Shivaharalayya vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 February, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
WRIT PETITION NO.15981 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. S.M. SHIVAHARALAYYA
S/O LATE SOMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
WORKING AS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE,
M/S. VORION DISTILLERIES,
YESHWANTHPURA,
BANGALORE - 560 022.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2
3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA,
M.S.BUILDING,
AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
BENGALURU - 01.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROSECUTOR.
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.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2/STATE;
SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3/LOKAYUKTHA;
SRI. MRC MANOHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
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).
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 30.01.2024 THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
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).
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
3. 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
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.
4. 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
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.
5. 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.
6. 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
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.
7. 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/-.
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.
8. 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.
9. The Co-ordinate Bench granted the interim stay, in
the meanwhile the respondent counsel submits the police
already completed the investigation and awaiting the
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.
10. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following
order:
This petition is hereby dismissed.
However liberty is granted for challenging the charge
sheet after filing the final reports.
Interim order is hereby vacated.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AKV
CT:SK
