Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramesh K T vs State Of Karnataka 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
WRIT PETITION NO.10799 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMESH K. T.
S/O THAMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
PREVIOUSLY WORKING AS
POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
HULIYUR P.S.,
TUMAKURU,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
I/C. INSPECTOR,
CID - BENGALURU,
BENGALURU,
PERMANENT R/O:
KYATANAYAKANA HALLI,
MUDDENAHALLI POST,
CHIKKANAYAKANA HALLI TALUK,
TUMAKURU - 572 228.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SUNIL KUMAR S, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ANTI-CORRUPTION
BUREAU P. S.,
TUMAKURU.
NOW BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SRI. C. R. GIRISH,
S/O C. M. RANGASWAMAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC-BUSINESS, JOGIHALLI,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI,
TUMAKURU - 572 214.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B. B.PATIL, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR
R1/LOKAYUKTHA
R2-SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND
COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.08/2021 REGISTERED BY THE
RESPONDENT - ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU - NOW BY
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, DATED 04/08/2021 FOR OFFENCE
P/U/S 7(a) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT-1988
WHICH IS NOW PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE VII ADDL.
DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU VIDE ANNEXURE-
A AND A1.
THIS WRIT 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
No.1 under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR in
Crime No.8/2021 registered by the then Anti Corruption
Bureau (ACB) now Karnataka Lokayuktha for the
offence punishable under Section 7(a) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'P.C. Act).
2. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner and learned Special counsel for the
respondent No.1-Lokayuktha.
3. Respondent No.2 served unrepresented.
4. The case of the prosecution is that on the
complaint of respondent No.2, the police registered the
FIR, it is alleged by the complainant that the petitioner
being Sub-Inspector of Huliyar Police Station,
Tumakuru said to be demanded Rs.4,00,000/- for
releasing his friend Lokesh on the complaint filed by the
Manager of the Muthoot Finance namely Shivakumar. It
is alleged that on 30.07.2021, he went to the Huliyar
Police Station to enquire about the arrest of his friend
Lokesh and for releasing his friend Lokesh as he said to
be cheated the Muthoot Finance and the said amount
has been spent by him and for that, the petitioner
being the Sub-Inspector demanded Rs.10,00,000/- for
releasing Lokesh. The complainant informed that that
he will pay Rs.1,00,000/- and came back from the
police station.
5. Again on 01.08.2021, the said Lokesh
telephoned to the complainant and told that at least he
should pay Rs.4,00,000/- to the police, otherwise, they
will fix him in the criminal case. The complainant met
the PSI-the petitioner and he told that he brought only
Rs.2,00,000/- and said that he will pay another
Rs.2,00,000/- within a week. Then the petitioner
informed one Dafedar-Mukthiyar to collect the amount
of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant. The said
conversation was recorded by the complainant then the
said Mukthiyar took the complainant to the backside of
the police station, received Rs.2,00,000/-, then
contacted the petitioner through telephone. Then the
said Mukthiyar took the complainant towards the fruit
stall and he was not ready to receive the money,
thereafter a signal was given by the complainant to the
police. Thereafter the Mukthiyar brought Lokesh and
released him to the complainant. Then on 3.8.2021,
one Chethan, the Police Constable telephoned to the
Lokesh and demanded Rs.2,00,000/-. Therefore, the
complainant is not willing to pay remaining
Rs.2,00,000/-, hence, complaint came to be filed to the
ACB police and in turn the police registered the FIR.
6. Subsequently, the Police were trying to trap
the petitioner, but trap was failed on 4.8.2021 and
again they tried to trap the petitioner on 5.8.2021, the
trap was failed and the police took up the investigation
which is under challenge.
7. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
has contended that there is no demand and acceptance
by the petitioner. The trap was failed. When there is no
demand and acceptance of bribe, the question of
proving the case does not arise. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta vs. State (GOVT.
OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731
has held that the demand and acceptance is sine qua
non to attract Section 7 of the P.C. Act. Therefore,
when there is no trap, the question of filing charge
sheet does not arise and hence, prayed for quashing
the criminal proceedings. In support of his case, the
learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Neeraj Dutta
stated supra and Soundarajan vs. State in
Crl.A.No.1592/2022 and the judgement of the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Thippeswamy vs. State and Another in
W.P.No.15644/2022 (GM-RES).
8. Per contra, Sri B.B.Patil, learned Special
counsel appearing for the Lokayuktha has vehemently
contended that there was demand made by the
petitioner which was recorded in the mobile. The mobile
conversation reveals that he has demanded
Rs.4,00,000/-from the complainant. Even the demand
itself has constituted the offence under Section 7 of
P.C. Act as per the illustration under Section 7 of P.C.
Act. Whether the bribe obtained or accepted or attempt
to accept were also constitute an offence. There is a
clear demand, therefore, Section 7 of the P.C. Act
attracts. Learned counsel also contended that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has not considered in respect of
acceptance and failure of trap which is grey area.
Therefore, he prayed for dismissing the petition.
9. Having heard the arguments and on perusal
of the records, the allegation against the petitioner is
that the petitioner being Police Sub-Inspector of Huliyar
Police station demanded bribe of Rs.4,00,000/- for
releasing one Lokesh who is the friend of the
complainant. The complainant said to be paid
Rs.2,00,000/- to the one Mukthiyar-accused No.2 and
they demanded further Rs.2,00,000/- therefore, the
complaint came to be filed on 4.8.2021. The police set
up a trap and waited near the police station, but the
complainant not able to meet the PSI. On that day the
Additional S.P. of Tumakuru visited the police station
and felt that there is no chances of receiving the money
by the accused. hence, they returned back to the Police
Station.
10. It is further alleged that on 5.8.2021, once
again, the police team tried to trap the petitioner, went
near the police station, waited from morning 9.45 a.m.
to 12.30 p.m., the accused came to the Police Station,
but sent out the complainant for lunch and once again
the trap was failed. Though there is conversation
between accused No.2 and the complainant, but there
is no conversation held between accused No.1-the
present petitioner and the complainant.
11. On verification of the pre trap panchanama
prepared by the Police on 4.8.2021, the complainant
has stated that accused No.1 demanded Rs.4,00,000/-
and he has agreed to give Rs.2,00,000/- and he took
Rs.2,00,000/- and went to the Police station, but he
has instructed accused No.2-Mukthiyar to receive the
same. But there is no telephonic conversation recorded
by the complainant. However, the complainant has
stated that accused No.2-Mukthiyar took him to the a
fruit shop and met one Zabi and asked to give money
later he has taken to one Mobile shop, one Rafiq came
and received the money etc. But no such conversation
held between accused No.1 and the complainant.
Respondent No.2 had conversation with accused No.2,
but accused No.2 has stated that he has been
instructed by his Saheb, but there is no reference that
this petitioner demanded money from the complainant.
Even after registering the FIR, the complainant went to
the Police Station and he never met accused No.1-the
present petitioner, stayed outside the Police Station. On
4.8.2021, the Additional Dy.S.P. said to be in the Police
Station. Therefore, once again he was unable to meet
accused No.1 and there is no demand by the present
petitioner at that time and the trap was failed.
12. On 5.8.2021, once again the police team
along with the complainant, panch witness were all
went near the police station, but there is no successful
trap and also there is no conversation between accused
No.1 and the complainant and on that day also there is
no demand made by the accused. The complainant
met accused No.2 and he was unable to pay the money
and trap was failed.
13. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta stated supra 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 dehors 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"
14. Based upon the above said judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the another judgment by the
same Bench in the case of Soundarajan, stated supra,
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."
15. 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.
16. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and Co-ordinate Bench of this Court,
this Court in the case of N. Thejas Kumar vs. State
and Another in W.P.No.915/2022 (GM-RES) dated
21.03.2022 also held 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.
17. 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.
18. 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 case, 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 subsequent Division
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 stated supra has quashed the criminal
proceedings in similar set of facts.
19. 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 not
successful for 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. Therefore, the petitioner has made out
a case for quashing the FIR.
20. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
The FIR against the petitioner in Crime No.8/2021
registered by the then ACB, Tumakuru, now pending in
Lokayuktha is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GBB
CT:SK
