Karnataka High Court
Sri. B K Srinivas vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 March, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.925 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. B. K. SRINIVAS
S/O LATE B. S. KUMARASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
ZONAL OFFICE NO.3 AND E-KATHA,
MUDA MYSORE,
MADAGALLI,
MYSURU - 571 130.
(UNDER SUSPENSION),
R/AT NO.47/11, 12, 13,
AMAR AMBREESH ENCLAVE,
2ND CROSS,
MADAGALLI,
2ND STAGE,
MYSORE - 570 026.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T.R.GIRISHA, ADVOCATE )
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH LOKAYUKTA POLICE
REPRESENTED BY SPP OFFICE,
2
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI. KARTHIK K
S/O KUMAR K
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
MANAGER OF SRI. WRIGHT HOMES PVT. LTD.,
KUVEMPUNAGARA,
MYSORE - 570 023.
R/A NO.226, 12TH CROSS,
ARAVINDANAGARA,
MYSORE - 570 023.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND
COMPLIANT IN CR.NO.23/2022 DATED 23.12.2022
REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT LOKAYUKTA POLICE
MYSURU PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE A AND B PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE HONBLE 3rd ADDITIONAL SESSIONS AND
SPECIAL JUDGE, MYSURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.7(A) OF
THE PC ACT 1988 (AMENDMENT ACT 2018).
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 15.02.2024 THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR in Crime
No.23/2022 registered by the Lokayuktha Police, Mysuru,
now pending on the file of the III Additional Sessions and
Special Judge, Mysuru, for the offence punishable under
Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(Amendment Act 2018) (hereinafter referred to as 'P.C.
Act').
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Special Counsel for respondent-
Lokayuktha.
3. The case of prosecution is that on the complaint
of one K. Karthik filed on 23.12.2022, the Lokayuktha
police registered the case. It is alleged in the complaint that
he is working as Manager in Sri Wright Homes Private
Limited, Kuvempu Nagar, Mysuru. His company said to be
formed a layout by consisting of 35 sites. It is further
alleged that his Company approached Mysore Urban
Development Authority (MUDA) for khata of site Nos.33, 34,
35, 71, 73 and 74. His company owner filed an application
before MUDA on 22.9.2022 and no khatha was changed yet.
The complainant was assigned for the said purpose. In spite
of completion of three months, there was no progress in the
application. Hence, the complainant approached accused
No.1-Ranganna on 16.12.2022. For that, accused No.1-
Ranganna demanded Rs.20,000/- for issuing the challan.
After receiving the challan, the complainant went back. In
spite of depositing the fee by challan, accused No.1
Ranganna has not changed the khatha. Hence, on
18.12.2022, once again, after depositing the amount, he
met Ranganna on 21.12.2022 at 2.30 p.m. He was not
found and therefore, the complainant contacted through the
mobile phone. For that, accused No.1 told that if his fee
were not paid, the khatha would not be done. It is further
alleged that when the complainant was trying to give
Rs.7,000/-, accused No.1-Ranganna returned it and asked
to give Rs.20,000/-. Finally, the complainant agreed to give
Rs.2,000/- per site, totalling Rs.14,000/-. For that, accused
No.1 agreed. The complainant was not Willing to pay the
bribe, and hence, filed the complaint.
4. The police, after registering the FIR, set up trap
and on 23.12.2022 at 1.40 p.m. Accused No.1-Ranganna
asked the complainant as to whether he has brought
Rs.14,000/- and told him to wait for 20 minutes. After 20
minutes, accused No.1-Ranganna asked to give money and
received the same from the complainant. Accused No.1
counted the money and he gave Rs.7,000/- to the woman
attender - accused No.3 and kept Rs.7,000/- in his pocket.
Accused No.1 instructed the woman attender to give to him
(not named) and bring the file. Accordingly, the woman
attender went outside and went to the chamber of accused
No.2 and handed over Rs.7000/- and took the file. Then,
the police trapped and seized the cash under panchanama
and arrested the accused persons. They took up
investigation, which is under challenge.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously
contended that the petitioner is working as the Special
Tahsildar, MUDA. His name is not found either in the FIR or
in the complaint. Accused No.1-Ranganna, being an
employee of the MUDA, has demanded bribe from the
complainant. The petitioner already signed the khatha on
17.12.2022 itself and no work is pending with him. Accused
No.1-Ranganna kept the file with himself. Accused No.1-
Ranganna received loan from the petitioner-accused No.2
and that was returned back. The petitioner-accused No.2
neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from the
complainant. The amount was threw on the table. The
petitioner-accused No.2 has given explanation specifically
that he has not demanded or accepted bribe from anybody.
Therefore, conducting investigation is abuse of process of
law and prayed for quashing investigation. In support of his
contentions, the learned counsel has relied on the
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in NEERAJ DUTTA
Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) reported in
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1724, and also 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, etc.
6. Per contra, learned Special Counsel for the
respondent-Lokayuktha has objected the petition by filing
objection and contended that accused No.1-Ranganna
demanded money and sent to the petitioner-accused No.2
through a staff. The petitioner-accused No.2 received
money and kept in his pocket. The matter is under
investigation. Hence, prayed for rejecting the petition.
7. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for
the parties, perused the records.
8. On careful reading of the trap pnachanama, copy
of the complaint and the arguments addressed by the
learned Senior Counsels, which reveals that accused No.1-
Ranganna was the person, who demanded the bribe of
Rs.14,000/- for releasing the khatha order. He has
demanded Rs.2,000/- per site for issuing khatha and as on
the date of demand on 21.12.2022, the complainant agreed
to give the bribe amount demanded by accused No.1-
Ranganna. Subsequently, on 23.12.2022, the complainant
went along with shadow witness as per the instruction of the
team of police for trap. He has given Rs.14,000/- to
accused No.1-Ranganna and accused No.1-Rangannna
received Rs.14000/- and taken out Rs.7,000/- and kept in
his pocket and given the remaining amount of Rs.7,000/- to
accused No.3 and ordered to bring the file. Accordingly,
accused No.3 said to be given the amount to the present
petitioner-accused No.2 and brought the file. Subsequently,
accused No.3 was caught hold by the police, and after
knowing that, the petitioner-accused No.2 threw the money
received from accused No.3 on the table of accused No.1,
which clearly reveals that the petitioner-accused No.2
neither demanded any bribe from the complainant nor
accepted the bribe from the complainant.
9. Of course, accused No.3 given Rs.7,000/- to the
petitioner-accused No.2 which was received by him and
later, thrown out by him on the table. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Soundarajan, cited supra, has held
that the demand and acceptance is sine qua non for
establishing the offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has relied upon the judgment of the
Constitution Bench in the case of Neeraj Dutta, cited
supra, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
the demand and acceptance is sine qua non for establishing
the case under Section 7 of P.C. Act. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has also held in the case of K SHANTHAMMA Vs.
STATE OF TELENGANA reported in (2022) 4 SCC 574,
that the demand and acceptance is sine qua non for
constituting the offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act.
10. This Court also, in a similar case, in the case of
YASHWANTH B.S. Vs. STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA in
Criminal Petition No.1099/2023 dated 18.05.2023 has
quashed the FIR against the accused by relying upon the
judgments in the case of Shanthamma and also the case of
Bhajan Lal. Here, in this case, absolutely, there is no
demand by the petitioner-accused No.2 by any gratification
from the complainant. In fact, the petitioner-accused No.2
never met the complainant at any point of time. Apart from
that, there is no work pending with the petitioner. Accused
No.1-Ranganna has demanded the bribe and accepted it.
As per the explanation of the petitioner-accused No.2,
accused No.3 given some amount to him which was the loan
given to accused No.1-Ranganna and it was repaid. Such
being the case, the question of investigating the matter and
filing charge sheet against the petitioner-accused No.2 is
unsustainable. The petitioner accused No.2 neither
demanded nor accepted bribe from the complainant. Even
as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
caseof Neeraj Dutta, cited supra, if the petitioner-accused
No.2 accepted any bribe without demand from the
complainant, then it will constitute an offence under
Section 7 of the P.C. Act, but none of the ingredients are
made out in the trap panchanama.
11. Apart from that, the name of petitioner-accused
No.2 is neither found in FIR nor in the complaint, and there
is no demand made by him from the complainant and also
there is no acceptance and further, the work is also not
pending with him. Such being the case, continuing the
investigation is abuse of process of law and liable to be
quashed in view the judgment in the case of STATE OF
HARYANA AND OTHERS Vs. CH. BHAJAN LAL AND
OTHERS reported in 1992 SCC Suppl. (1) 335.
12. Accordingly, I pass the following order:
The Criminal Petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime
No.23/2022 registered by Lokayuktha police, Mysuru,
pending on the file of the III Additional Sessions and Special
Judge, Mysuru, for the offence punishable under Section
7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amendment Act
2018), is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CS
CT:SK
