Karnataka High Court
Sri Manjunatha vs State By Lokayuktha Police on 26 February, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.504 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. MANJUNATHA
@ MANJAPPA. A
S/O CHITRANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
DEVARAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
DEVARAHALLI,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA.V.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE
REPRESENTED BY
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
DAVANAGERE - 577 213.
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 01.
2 . SRI. SANTHOSH B.H.
S/O BILLAPPA,
2
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT DEVARAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213.
..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B B PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1/LOKAYUKTHA;
R2 - SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
COMPLAINT DATED 14.09.2022 LODGED BY THE SECOND
RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-B) AND THE IMPUGNED FIR
REGISTERED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN CR.NO.6/2022
DATED 14.09.2022 AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 7(a) OF P.C ACT FILED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A) AND ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO PENDING BEFORE THE
HONBLE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
DAVANAGERE IN CR.NO.6/2022 (ANNEXURE-J).
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 31.01.2024 THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. read with Article 226 of Constitution
of India for quashing the FIR in Crime No.6/2022 registered
by the Karnataka Lokayuktha police, Davanagere, on
14.9.2022 for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to
as 'P.C. Act').
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Special counsel for Lokayuktha. The
respondent No.2 has remained absent.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the
complaint of respondent No.2, the Lokayuktha police
registered FIR against him on 28.12.2022. It is alleged that
the complainant was contractor and into contract work with
the Public authorities, along with his friend Manjunath.
They have done some work under 'NAREGA scheme' at
Village Panchayath Devarahalli Channagiri Taluk in
Sy.No.76, during the year 2020-21. There was tender called
by the Competent Authority. Accordingly, one
H.D.Mallikarjun, contractor obtained the contract under the
tender. On behalf of Mallikarjun, the contractual work was
done by the complainant and his friend Manjunath.
Accordingly, the petitioner-Manjunath released the amount
of Rs.18,67,832/- after deducting the taxes and the
remaining amount was payable by the authority of
Rs.1,05,000/-. In order to release amount of Rs.1,05,000/-
, the present petitioner-PDO, said to have demanded
Rs.93,000/- as bribe. On 9.9.2022 at about 1.30 p.m., the
complainant and his friend Manjunath approached the
petitioner-PDO for releasing the balance amount. For that,
he has demanded Rs.93,000/- and then they were unable to
pay so much amount and the complainant has bargained for
Rs.50,000/- and the petitioner agreed to receive
Rs.60,000/-, at the intervention of one Nagarajappa. It is
further alleged that on 12.9.2022, when the complainant
and his friend were proceeding on the bike, at 12.45 p.m.,
the petitioner called the complainant's friend and asked why
the amount was not yet paid. Again on 13.9.2022, when
the complainant and his brother Nagarajappa were going to
the police station at 10.59 a.m., once again, the petitioner
called the complainant asking as to why the amount was not
yet paid and asked him to come and pay. The complainant
was not willing to pay the bribe amount, hence filed
complaint to the Lokayuktha police on 14.9.2022.
4. After receiving the complaint, the police registered
the FIR in Crime No.1/2022 (subsequently they corrected in
the FIR as Crime No.6/2022 but not made correction in the
endorsement made on the complaint). Subsequently, a trap
was laid along with the panchas and a pre-trap panchanama
was prepared and the amount of Rs.60,000/- was paid by
the complainant to the police and instruction was given to
the panchas including the shadow witness. All went to the
office of the accused on 15.9.2022 at 11.30 a.m. The
accused was not available till 12.30 p.m., as he was held up
in the meeting, then they waited for the accused till 6.00
p.m., in the panchayath office and they were unable to trace
out the whereabouts of the accused petitioner. Therefore,
they came back due to failure of the trap.
5. It is further case of the prosecution, that once
again the police prepared trap on 16.9.2022, they went to
the office of the accused at 10.00 a.m., and waited till 5.00
p.m. The accused did not come into his contact either
through telephone or in person. Therefore, once again the
trap was failed and they came back. Subsequently, the
police dropped the trap proceedings. Being aggrieved with
the registering of the FIR, the petitioner is before this court
by challenging the same.
6. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner has
strenuously contended that the FIR and investigation
against the petitioner is not sustainable, there is no demand
and acceptance of bribe by the accused/petitioner, the
alleged trap was failed. Such being the case, question of
conducting investigation does not arise. The learned counsel
has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731 in case of Neeraj Dutta Vs
State (NCT of Delhi) and also in case of Thippeswamy
B.M. Vs State of Karnataka in W.P.No.15644/2022
(GM-RES) passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court,
hence prayed for quashing the FIR.
7. Per contra learned counsel for respondent has
strenuously contended that mere demand of bribe also is an
offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the P.C. Act, as per
the explanation to the 7(a) of the P.C. Act. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court not considered the grey area that the
demand also is an offence. Therefore, the very demand
made by the petitioner has been recorded by the
complainant through his mobile phone, which clearly
demonstrates the bribe demanded by the accused persons.
Therefore, the matter requires to be investigated by the
police and file charge sheet. Hence, prayed for dismissing
the petition.
8. On perusal of the records, the complainant said to
be the friend of the contractor who said to be done
contractual work with the village panchayat, where the
petitioner was PDO under the 'NAREGA Scheme' and the
petitioner already said to be paid Rs.18,67,000/- to the
complainant's friend. There was arrears of Rs.1,05,000/-
towards the bill payment, for that, Rs.93,000/- said to be
demanded by the accused for releasing Rs.1,05,000/-.
Obviously, the fact itself cannot be believable since for
releasing Rs.1,05,000/- demanding Rs.93,000/- is totally
unbelievable. That apart, if the work is already done, and
amount was already paid, the question of demanding bribe
for releasing the amount cannot be acceptable. There is no
post-paid concept in P.C. Act, as there is no work pending
with the accused.
9. That apart, twice the Police set up the trap, one is
on 15.09.2022 and another is on 16.09.2022, both the
times, the trap was failed and even the police team or the
complainant were unable to contact the accused and they
have not at all met the accused-petitioner. Therefore, the
Police dropped the trap proceedings.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Neeraj Dutta stated supra and the Constitutional
Bench has held that the demand and acceptance are sine
qua non for proving the case punishable under Section 7 of
the P.C. Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held at
paragraph No.3 that proof of demand is sine qua non for the
offence to be established under Section 7(13)(1)(d)(ii) of
the Act and the proof of demand, the offence under two
Sections cannot be brought home. Mere acceptance of any
amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification of recovery
there of, in the absence of proof of demand could not be
sufficient to bring home the charge under Section
7(13)(i)(ii) of the Act. After the judgment of the constitution
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, once again the
Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
subsequent judgment of Neeraj Dutta's case, has
considered the legal position at paragraph No.8 of the
judgment and finally at paragraph No.10 has held that:
" The demand for gratification and the
acceptance there of are sine qua non offence
punishable under Section 7 of P.C. Act"
11. Based upon the above said judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in another judgment by the same
Bench in the case of Soundarajan vs. State in
Crl.A.No.1592/2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
taken the similar view at paragraph No.9, of the judgment
which is as under:
"9. We have considered the submissions. It
is well settled that for establishing the
commission of an offence punishable under
Section 7 of the PC Act, proof of demand of
gratification and acceptance of the
gratification is a sine qua non. Moreover, the
Constitution Bench in the case of Neeraj Dutta
has reiterated that the presumption under
Section 20 of the PC Act can be invoked only
on proof of facts in issue, namely, the
demand of gratification by the accused and
the acceptance thereof."
12. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of P.Manjuanth vs. State by Karnataka Lokayuktha
and Another reported case in W.P.No.10027/2022 (GM-
RES) dated 16.11.2022 has also taken similar view and
quashed the criminal proceedings. Subsequently, the same
Co-ordinate Bench in a similar case in W.P. 15644/2022 in
the case of Thippeswamy B.M. vs. State by Karnataka
Lokayuktha and Another dated 13.1.2023, a trap was
failed and the Co-ordinate Bench has quashed the FIR.
13. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, this Court also
held in the case of N. Thejas Kumar vs. State and
Another in W.P.No.915/2022 (GM-RES) dated
21.03.2022 that the demand and acceptance is sine qua
non for proving the charges against the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act.
14. The respondent counsel has relied upon the
judgment of the Mumbai High Court in the case of
Pandurang Shinde vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
2018 SCC OnLine Bom 881 and the judgment of Madhya
Pradesh High Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Singh
vs. State and others dated 03.07.1998.
15. To the fact and circumstances of the case, the
said judgments which are delivered by the Madhya Pradesh
High Court and Mumbai High Court are not applicable to the
case on hand, since the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the latest judgment in the case of Neeraj
Dutta has twice passed the judgment and the Division
Bench has categorically held that demand and acceptance
are sine qua non for constituting the offence under Section 7
of P.C. Act. That apart, the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of
Thippeswamy's case stated supra has quashed the
criminal proceedings in similar set of facts.
16. Here in this case, the demand was not at all
shown in any telephonic conversation, except the oral
complaint of the complainant and trap also was not
successful, twice. Such being the case, there is no case
made out against the accused for conducing investigation
for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act.
17. That part, the police made endorsement in the
complaint and registered the case in Crime No.1/2022 and
in the FIR they have corrected as Crime No.7/2022. The
endorsement in the complaint Crime Number stated in the
complaint and the FIR contradicts each other. The same is
not at all corrected by the complainant-police. Therefore,
the petitioner has made out a case for quashing the FIR.
18. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
The FIR in Crime No.6/2022 registered by the
Karnataka Lokayuktha police, Davangere, against the
petitioner is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AKV/GBB
CT:SK
