Karnataka High Court

Lalita vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 January, 2025

Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty

Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty

                                                -1-
                                                             NC: 2025:KHC-K:623
                                                      CRL.RP No. 200130 of 2023




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                        KALABURAGI BENCH

                             DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

                                             BEFORE
                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY


                        CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200130 OF 2023
                                     (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
                      BETWEEN:

                      SMT. LALITA W/O DHANASING RATHOD,
                      AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: FDA,
                      R/O. BANGALORE.

                                                                   ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI S. S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                      THROUGH ACB POLICE STATION, VIJAYAPUR,
Digitally signed by   REP. BY ITS ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
SHILPA R
TENIHALLI             ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE,
Location: HIGH        HIGH COURT BUILDING,
COURT OF              KALABURAGI-585103.
KARNATAKA
                                                                 ...RESPONDENT
                      (BY SRI GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE)


                           THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF
                      CR.P.C PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23-08-
                      2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS
                      JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE VIJAYPUR IN SPECIAL ( CORRUPTION)
                      CASE NO.17/2021 ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
                      PETITIONER/ ACCUSED -2 UNDER SECTION 227 CR.PC AND
                      CONSEQUENTLY DISCHARGE HER OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCES.
                                 -2-
                                              NC: 2025:KHC-K:623
                                      CRL.RP No. 200130 of 2023




    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY


                          ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

1. The accused No.2 in Special (Corruption) Case

No.17/2021 pending before the Court of Principal Sessions

Judge/Special Judge, Vijayapura, is before this Court

assailing the order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the said

Court rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under

Section 227 of Cr.P.C., seeking her discharge.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned counsel for the respondent, who has filed his

statement of objections.

3. The petitioner herein is charge-sheeted for the

offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of

Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and she is being tried for

the charge-sheeted offence in Special (Corruption) case

No.17/2021 before the Court of Principal Sessions

NC: 2025:KHC-K:623

Judge/Special Judge, Vijayapura. In the said proceedings,

the petitioner had filed an application under Section 227 of

Cr.P.C., seeking discharge. The same was opposed by the

respondent by filing statement of objection. The trial Court,

vide the impugned order has rejected the application of the

petitioner filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., and being

aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having

reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that,

there is absolutely no material to show that, the petitioner

had received a sum of Rs.2,000/- in excess from the de facto

complainant as alleged in the first information. In the

absence of material to show that, the petitioner has received

the bribe amount as contended by the de facto complainant,

she cannot be prosecuted for the charge-sheeted offence.

The trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the

matter and has erred in rejecting the application filed under

Section 227 of Cr.P.C.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

has opposed the prayer made in the petition. He submits

NC: 2025:KHC-K:623

that, the conversation of the de facto complainant with the

petitioner in her office on the day when she received a sum

of Rs.2,500/- from him, has been recorded in the mobile

phone. A reading of transcript of the said conversation would

clearly go to show that, a demand was made for payment of

Rs.2,500/- by the petitioner towards renewal fee, though the

actual renewal fee is only Rs.500/-. The petitioner was

present along with the accused No.1 on the day when the

accused No.1 visited the Petrol Bunk of de facto complainant

and had demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- for renewal of the

establishment certificate of the petrol bunk which stood in

the name of the mother of the de facto complainant.

Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. In the first information dated 10.11.2020, the de

facto complainant Sri. Rupesh Vasantala Shaha, has stated

that, his mother had a Petrol Bunk licence issued by Essar

Company and his father was taking care of the Petrol Bunk.

Once in five years, the registration certificate of

establishment of the Petrol Bunk had to be renewed. The

said certificate was last renewed in the year 2016 and it was

NC: 2025:KHC-K:623

due to be renewed on 31.12.2020. On 07.10.2020, the

accused Nos.1 and 2 had visited the Bank and inspected the

same. Thereafter, the accused No.1 after collecting the

mobile phone number of the de facto complainant spoke to

him and demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- for renewal of the

registration certificate of establishment. The said

conversation was recorded in the mobile. Thereafter, it is

alleged that, a sum of Rs.5000/- was paid to accused No.1.

On 21.10.2020, the de facto complainant had visited the

office of accused No.2/petitioner and had submitted a

renewal application along with the old certificate and other

requisite documents and accused No.2 allegedly demanded

renewal fee of Rs.2,500/- from him and he had paid the said

amount in cash to her and also recorded their conversation

in his mobile phone. He has stated that, the actual amount

for renewal fee was only Rs.500/- and the accused No.2 had

demanded excess amount and received a sum of Rs.2000/-

in excess from him. Since his mother was not willing to pay

the bribe amount as demanded by the accused No.1, he had

approached the police subsequently on 10.11.2020 and

NC: 2025:KHC-K:623

submitted the first information, based on which FIR in Crime

No.14/2020 was registered against accused Nos.1 and 2. The

material on record would go to show that, accused No.1 who

was a District Labour Officer was caught red-handed in a

trap that was laid on 10.11.2020, after registration of FIR.

The respondent-police after the investigation have filed the

charge-sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the

aforesaid offences.

7. A perusal of the transcript of conversation

between the de facto complainant and the accused No.2

which is part of the charge-sheet would go to show that,

when the de facto complainant had approached accused No.2

in her office on 21.10.2020, the accused No.2 had demanded

a sum of Rs.2,500/- from him towards renewal fee and she

also had assured that within 10 to 12 days, his work will be

done. In the said conversation, it is also found that she has

stated that, she along with accused No.1 had visited the

Petrol Bunk of the de facto complainant's mother earlier.

Therefore, it cannot be said that, there is absolutely no

NC: 2025:KHC-K:623

material as against the petitioner for prosecuting her for the

charge-sheeted offence.

8. In the case of Central Bureau of

Investigation vs. Aryan Singh and Others1, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph No.10 has observed

as follows:

"10. From the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution / investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution / investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At

2023 SCC OnLine SC 379

NC: 2025:KHC-K:623

the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not".

9. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion

that, the trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the

application filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of

Cr.P.C., seeking her discharge. I do not find any good

ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the following

order: