Karnataka High Court
Sri Raghavendra B G vs State Of Karnataka By on 7 March, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8986 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAGHAVENDRA B G
S/O GOVINDHE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
NO. 1111,
HIRIDEVI EXTENSION, BELGOLA,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
MANDYA - 571 606.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.DEVARAJA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
LOKAYUKTA POLICE, MYSORE,
(EARLIER ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,
MYSORE CITY DIVISION)
REPRESENTED BY SPL.PP,
2 . SRI. SANDESH HOSAMATTA,
S/O. NAAGARAAJU H.P,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
BUSINESSMAN,
R/AT NO.2/148, SAROBA ROAD,
NEHRU COLONY, SHIRAALA COPPA,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT - 577 427
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, SPECIAL COUNSEL
FOR R1/KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA;
SRI. RAJKUMAR V C., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR
AND ITS TYPED COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.6/2020
REGISTERED BY THE THEN ACB (MYSORE DIVISION)
NOW WITH LOKAYUKTHA, MYSORE, FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 7(A) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988
(AMENDMENT ACT 2018), PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
HONBLE 3RD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION AND
SPECIAL COURT, MYSORE DISTRICT, UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONER CONCERNED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.02.2024 THIS DAY,
THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the criminal
proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.6/2020
registered by the then ACB/presently Lokayuktha, Mysuru
for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (amendment Act
2018) (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act'), pending on
the file of III Additional District and Session and Special
Court, Mysuru district.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned special counsel for Lokayuktha.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, on the
complaint of one Sandesh Hosamatta, to the police on
8.7.2020 alleging that one known person by name
Vasantha was said to be cheated by one Prem Kumar by
promising to marry her and he said to be committed
sexual assault on her. A complaint was filed to the
Metagalli police station, but they have not arrested the
accused and he requested him to come and talk to the
police. Accordingly, the complainant approached the
Metagalli police station to enquire about FIR in
Crime No.58/2020 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 376, 417 and 420 of IPC on 04.7.2020.
The petitioner being inspector, when the complainant
approached him to enquire about the said FIR, the
accused said to have told to one Bheemanna, the police
constable to attend the complainant and asked him to
discuss. Later, when the friend of the complainant one
Bharat Kumar telephoned to the Bheemanna, police
constable, he said to have asked them to come to
Akshaya Lodge. Accordingly, when the complainant
along with one Bharat Kumar went to Akshaya Lodge and
discussed about the case, for that, the accused
Bheemanna said to have demanded Rs.1 lakh for settling
the issue. Then, the petitioner said to have informed that
the accused, who said to be cheated the girl-Vasantha in
Crime No.58/2020, and the victim girl shall be allowed to
discuss together for 10 minutes and decide the issue.
Thereafter, the petitioner said to be told if there is no
resolving of the dispute, they will produce the accused to
the court and they will get the bail and said to be
demanded Rs.1 lakh for settling the dispute. On
6.7.2020, the said Bharat Kumar telephoned to
Bheemanna and he said to have told that the accused
had obtained bail and only filing of the charge sheet is
pending. Further, said to be told to discuss the matter
between the accused and the girl. It is further alleged on
7.7.2020, when the Bharat Kumar contacted constable
Bheemanna by phone, the said constable asked him to
come to Akshaya Lodge once again. Bharat Kumar and
the complainant both went to the same Akshaya Lodge.
The police inspector and the petitioner also was present.
When they enquired about the case with Bheemanna, for
that, the accused Bheemanna said to have asked to come
prepared and give the bribe amount. The complainant
informed that 'out of it, 25 is not adjusted', at which the
present petitioner/accused asked them to call the
accused that day itself, however, they were not willing to
give bribe amount. Hence, they filed the complaint.
Subsequently, FIR has been registered by the police.
4. The police prepared trap panchanama and then
the trap and was set up. On 8.7.2020 the trap team
went to the same hotel and the complainant was about to
handover the money to the present petitioner. The
accused petitioner said to be told them to give the bribe
amount to Bheemanna through signal. Then, this
amount was given to Bheemanna and immediately the
police trapped Bheemanna and seized the cash.
Accordingly, the amount has been seized under the
panchanama from Bheemanna and arrested this
petitioner and also Bheemanna. The matter is under
investigation. The same is challenged by the petitioner
who is accused No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has further contended, there is no demand and
acceptance by this petitioner and the accused No.1 had
demanded money and received the same. It is alleged
that the accused informed the complainant to handover
the money to the accused No.2, but there is no
conversation recorded in the mobile. There is no work
pending with the petitioner/accused No.2. The entire
telephonic conversation are between Bheemanna/accused
No.1 and respondent No.2. Therefore, question of
investigating the matter against the petitioner is not
sustainable.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
contended, a department enquiry was held against the
petitioner, where the very same complainant given
evidence and he has turned hostile and the enquiry was
completed. But no report has been submitted, there is
no connection between the petitioner and the
complainant in respect of Crime No.58/2020. Therefore,
prayed for quashing the FIR.
6. Per contra, learned special counsel for the
respondent No.1, objected the petition and contended
that he also filed statement of objection and contended
that the petitioner/accused No.2 and accused No.1 had
demanded bribe for settling the matter in crime
No.58/2020. This petitioner had instructed the
Bheemanna/accused No.1 to receive the money and
accordingly he received the money. The Phenolphthalein
test was conducted hand wash of accused No.1 was
turned into pink, when the accused No.1 was trapped.
The investigation is completed and they were waiting for
the sanction. The accused No.2 demanded bribe and
asked to handover to the accused No.1. The FIR was
registered after following the procedure and preliminary
enquiry is not required. Therefore, prayed for dismissing
the petition. In support of his case, learned counsel for
the respondent relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in AIR and contended the judgment relied
by the petitioner counsel not applicable to the case on
hand. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.
7. Having heard the arguments and perused the
records, the case of the complainant is that, he has
approached the petitioner in respect of Crime No.58/2020
registered against one Prem Kumar for the offences
under Sections 376 and 417 of IPC. The petitioner was
told for the possibility of settlement with the accused in
Crime No.58/2020 by the complainant and his friend,
where the said Prem Kumar has been arrested by the
police. For that, when the complainant approached the
present petitioner, he had informed the
Bheemanna/accused No.1 to discuss about the case, for
that, Bheemanna, head constable said to have demanded
for Rs.1 lakh as bribe and the accused No.1 had asked
the complainant to come to Akshaya lodge. Accordingly,
where the accused No.1 had demanded Rs.1 lakh and the
complainant said, he is having only Rs.75,000/- and was
not able to arrange Rs.25,000/- for that, there was
conversation between the accused no.1 and respondent
No.2. The complaint came to be filed against both the
accused Nos.1 and 2. Accordingly, on 8.7.2020, when
the complainant was handing over the bribe amount of
Rs.75,000/- to the accused No.1 was caught red handed.
The allegation against this petitioner/accused No.2 was
that, he has instructed the accused No.1 to receive the
money. Accordingly, accused No.1 while receiving the
bribe amount, was caught red handed.
8. The main contention of the petitioner counsel is
that, there is no demand and acceptance by the accused
No.2, by the present petitioner and the amount also was
received by the accused No.1, but not accused No.2.
There is no work pending with the accused No.2. In this
regard, the respondent counsel has contended, there was
telephonic conversation between the complainant and
present petitioner and as per the conversation in the pre-
trap panchanama, most of the conversations were
between the accused No.1 and the complainant. The
petitioner said to have told only when the complainant
enquired about granting of bail to the said Prem Kumar in
Crime No.58/2020. This petitioner has informed that the
bail may not be granted and it may be rejected. The
accused may go to High Court, but on perusal of the
conversation, absolutely there is no demand made by the
petitioner.
9. Another conversation record also reveals, there
is conversation between the accused No.1 and the
complainant. The 6th audio transcription reveals, that
complainant was telling the petitioner that if the
petitioner informs, he will make adjustment, for that the
petitioner told do something and 'you complete and he
will solve the problem'. On perusal of this conversation
also, it does not reveal that this petitioner had demanded
any bribe. The trap panchanama was prepared and the
conversation was held prior to the trap, also between the
accused No.1 and the complainant. Another conversation
reveals when the complainant wanted to give money to
the petitioner, he told 'go to him and go there itself' but
not stated the amount shall be paid to accused No.1.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent submits
the complainant stated in his statement, when the
complainant was about to give the amount, the
accused/petitioner signalled the complainant by signs to
handover to the accused No.1, but the same is not
recorded. If he has given hand signal, the question of
recording the conversation does not arises. Admittedly
the amount was received by the accused No.1, he has
been trapped, which reveals there is no demand and
acceptance by this petitioner.
11. That apart, another ground urged by the
petitioner counsel is that the departmental enquiry was
conducted. The complainant friend himself turned
hostile, he has denied for giving any bribe or demanding
the bribe by the petitioner. The enquiry reported is not
yet submitted and the petitioners likely to be exonerated
by the charges. In this regard, the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs
State of West Bengal and Anr., reported in (2011) 3
SCC 581 and in case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari
Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and
Anr. reported in (2020) 9 SCC 636 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had held, once in the department enquiry
when the accused is exonerated, the question of once
again investigating the matter and conducting
proceedings against the accused is abuse of process of
law. Herein in this case, the very same complainant's
friend one Vasantha given evidence before the enquiring
authority, where she has not stated that the petitioner
demanded any bribe in respect of the complaint for FIR in
Crime No.58/2020. Therefore, once the victim herself
not supported the case, on the same allegation the
investigation cannot be conducted by the police and
continuing process against the petitioner is nothing but
abuse of process of law.
12. For the above said reasons, that the
prosecution was not able to show the demand and
acceptance or conversation between the petitioner and
the respondent No.2 and the entire allegation goes
against the accused No.1. Such being the case, the FIR
against the petitioner required to be quashed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
Consequently, the FIR filed against the
petitioner/accused No.2, in Crime No.6/2020 registered
by the then ACB/presently Lokayuktha, Mysuru, pending
on the file of III Additional District and Session and
Special Court, Mysuru district, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AKV
CT:SK
