Karnataka High Court
Mr. Shivaprakash S N vs The State Karnataka Lokayukta Police on 1 March, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4680 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
MR. SHIVAPRAKASH S N
S/O NINGARAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER,
SAKALESHPURA,
PRESENTLY R/O NEAR MANIKANTA STORE,
VIJAYANAGAR, 2ND STAGE, HASSAN.
PERMANENT R/O SEEBALLI VILLAGE,
BELAWADI POST, ARAKALGUD TALUK - 573 113.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.N. PHANEENDRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE,
POLICE INSPECTOR,
HASSAN - 573 201. HASSAN DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.
2. ARCHANA
D/O RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
CHIKKASATTIGAL VILLAGE,
ARAKERE POST, SAKALESHPURA TALUK - 573 127.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. LETHIF, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR
R1/LOKAYUKTHA;
R2 - SERVED)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ENTIRE
INVESTIGATION IN CR.NO.3/2022 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 7(A) OF
P.C ACT AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.02.2024 THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused
No.1 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the FIR in
Crime No.3/2022 registered by respondent No.1-the then
Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), now Karnataka Lokayuktha
Police, Hassan, for the offence punishable under Section
7(a) of Prevention of Corruption (Amended) Act, 2018
(hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act').
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Special Counsel for respondent No.1-
Lokayuktha. Respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented.
3. The case of prosecution is that the complainant
Archana filed a complaint on 05.05.2022 before the ACB,
alleging that her mother Puttamma was working as an
Anganawadi teacher in Chikkasathigal village, when she died
during the service on 05.07.2021. The complainant filed an
application for appointment on compassionate ground
before the petitioner, who was the Child Development
Project Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'CDPO'). The
same was returned back by the CDPO to one Smt. Geetha,
an employee of the same department, for retention
certificate. Once again, the complainant obtained retention
certificate and submitted to the CDPO. After a month, the
complainant called Smt. Geetha on 08.04.2022 regarding
the progress, for that, she stated that the file was not with
her. Then, she called one Smt. Sudha on 26.04.2022 and
requested as to why there was delay and why the file was in
the CDPO. The said Sudha requested the complainant to
come and meet her. On meeting, the said Sudha demanded
Rs.20,000/- for sending recommendation. For that, the
complainant bargained and told that she would pay
Rs.10,000/- at the first instance and thereafter, she will pay
another Rs.10,000/-. The complainant was not willing to
pay the bribe. Hence, she lodged the complaint to the ACB
police. The police registered the FIR and thereafter, a trap
was set up on the same day on 05.05.2022.
4. It is further alleged that the police along with
panchas went near the house of Smt. Sudha and the
complainant telephoned to Smt. Sudha stating that she was
waiting in front of her house. Then the complainant joined
the said Sudha, and thereafter, both of them, went in an
auto rickshaw towards the office. The police team also
followed them. The police waited near the CDPO for signal
from the complainant. The complainant gave signal at 2.50
p.m. by coming out of the CDPO office. Then the
complainant handed over money to Smt. Sudha stating that
the petitioner-CDPO told to hand over the money to her.
Then, Smt. Sudha received money, and both Sudha and the
complainant went to the CDPO Office. The said Smt. Sudha
kept the money on the table of the petitioner-accused No.1
and immediately, the complainant informed the police by
signal. Then the amount, which was kept on the table, was
seized under panchanama. Thereafter, the petitioner was
arrested, and the said Smt. Sudha was also arrested by the
police. The matter is under investigation. Therefore, the
petitioner is before this Court by challenging the FIR.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended
on the main ground that, as per the complaint, the demand
was made in April 2022, i.e. on 26.04.2022. The complaint
was required to be filed within 7 days of the demand, but
the complaint was filed on 05.05.2022, i.e. after more than
10 days. The second contention was that there was no
demand of acceptance by the petitioner-accused No.1. The
allegation is that accused No.2-Sudha who demanded and
received the money, has kept the same on the table and it
was seized under panchanama. But, it was not accepted by
accused No.1. The hand wash also proves that the
petitioner-accused No.1 has not accepted any money. The
hand of accused No.2 turned into pink. Therefore, the
question of conducting investigation and filing the charge
sheet against the petitioner is abuse of process of law. The
delay was not explained by the complainant. In support of
his contentions, the learned counsel has relied upon the
judgments of one MAHESH P.S. Vs. STATE OF
KARNATKA AND ANOTHER in Criminal Petition
No.11547/2022 decided on 24.05.2023 and N. THEJAS
KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER
in Criminal Petition No.915/2022 decided on 21.03.2022.
6. Per contra, learned Special Counsel for the
respondent-Lokayuktha has contended that the delay was
explained that her father was unwell and there was
telephone conversation between accused Nos.1 and 2.
Accused No.1 instructed the complainant to hand over
money to accused No.2 Therefore, the amount was paid to
accused No.2. There is connection between accused Nos.1
and 2 regarding the demand and acceptance. The matter is
required for investigation. Hence, prayed for dismissing the
petition.
7. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for
the parties, perused the records.
8. As per the complaint, the complainant Archana
filed an application for appointment on compassionate
ground as Anganawadi Teacher in the office of the
petitioner, who is the CDPO. The application was lying with
Sudha-accused No.2, who had to recommend for
appointment. Therefore, she has demanded Rs.20,000/- for
recommendation and bargained for Rs.10,000/-. As per the
complaint, the application was filed long back in July 2021
itself. On 08.04.2022, the complainant contacted accused
No.2-Sudha. Finally, the demand was made on 26.04.2022
by accused No.2, but the complaint was made on
05.05.2022. There is delay of more than 10 days in filing
the complaint.
9. As per Section 8 to proviso-2 of the P.C. Act, if any
person has compelled for any demand for undue advantage,
the matter should be reported to the investigating agency
within a period of 7 days from the date of giving such undue
advantage. But, here, in this case, there is an inordinate
delay in lodging the complaint.
10. As per the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner, there is no demand and acceptance by
petitioner-accused No.1. Admittedly, accused No.2 was said
to be demanded Rs.20,000/- on 26.04.2022 and the
complaint was lodged on 05.05.2022. A trap set up was
made on the same day. The complainant took the bribe
amount to the house of accused No.2 and gave it to her.
Thereafter, both of them, went to CDPO office. Later, the
police went to the office of the CDPO where the amount was
kept on the table of the CDPO, which was not accepted by
the petitioner-accused No.1 (CDPO). Even he has not
touched the amount and it was lying on a paper, which was
kept on the table and the police seized the same. The hand
wash of accused No.2 with sodium carbonate solution turned
into pink colour, which reveals that the petitioner-accused
No.1 has not accepted the bribe amount. Even, the police
have asked petitioner-accused No.1 to take the money and
hand over to the police, but the petitioner-accused No.1 has
not touched the money, which clearly reveals that he has
not accepted the bribe amount.
11. That apart, the amount was received by accused
No.2-Smt. Sudha near her house. There is no nexus
between the demand and acceptance by the petitioner-
accused No.1. Even the petitioner-accused No.1 never
demanded any bribe from the complainant as per the
complaint. On the other hand, accused No.2 has demanded
and accepted the bribe. Though it was seized from the table
of petitioner-accused No.1, but he had not touched it and
therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner-accused No.2
has told accused No.2 to keep the money on the table. If
the petitioner said to keep the bribe amount on the table
and when the complainant went out of the office chamber
after keeping on the table, the petitioner-could have taken
and kept in his pocket or in almirah or he could have
touched it, but nothing has happened in this case.
12. It is only the say of the complainant that
petitioner-accused No.1 told accused No.2 to receive and
also told accused No.2 to keep the money on the table, etc,
but nothing is found in the audio recording. Therefore,
there is a clear case of implication of the petitioner-accused
No.1 falsely by the complainant in this case.
13. That apart, the file was also not in the custody of
the petitioner-accused No.1 and it was with accused No.2.
The conversation was also held also between accused No.2
and the complainant, and there is no conversation between
accused No.1 and complainant.
14. In the similar case, this Court quashed the FIR in
the case of MAHESH P.S., cited supra, by considering the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NEERAJ DUTTA
Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) reported in 2022
SCC OnLine SC 1724, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that the demand and acceptance are sine qua non
for quashing the offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act. The
complaint should be filed within 7 days from the date of
demand. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Neeraj Dutta, cited supra, has also taken a
similar view and the same Division Bench in the case of
SOUNDARAJAN Vs. STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE
INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIGILANCE, ANTI-
CORRUPTION, DINDIGUL in Crl.A.No.1592/2022
decided on 17.04.2023, has held that the demand and
acceptance of sine qua non has caused the offence
punishable under Section 7of P.C. Act. The same view was
taken by this Court in the case of Thejas Kumar, cited
supra, and quashed the FIR.
15. In the recent case, in K SHANTHAMMA Vs.
STATE OF TELENGANA reported in (2022) 4 SCC 574,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also taken the similar view
that the demand and acceptance is sine quo non for
establishing the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act.
Here, in this case, there is no demand and acceptance by
the petitioner-accused No.1 and there is delay of more than
7 days in lodging the complaint. The hand wash was also
not turned into pink colour. Such being the case,
conducting investigation against the petitioner-accused No.1
is nothing but the abuse of process of law in view of the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE
OF HARYANA AND OTHERS VS. CH. BAJAN LAL AND
OTHERS reported in 1992 SCC Suppl. (1) 335.
16. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The FIR
against the petitioner-accused No.1 in Crime No.3/2022
registered by the then ACB, now Karnataka Lokayuktha
Police, Hassan, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CS_CT:SK
