1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRL.P.NO. 5821/2023
BETWEEN:
SRI SURESH HEBBAGILU
S/O NARAYANA H
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
PDO, BELAGATTA GRAMA
PANCHAYATH, CHITRADURGA TALUK
AND DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT
JP NILAYA, MALLAIAH EXTENSION
8TH CROSS, NEWA RUDSET
CHITRADURGA TOWN - 577 501.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI H. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADV.)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
POLICE STATION
CHITRADURGA.
2 . SRI THIPPESWAMY
S/O POOJARI BANGARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
PRIVATE SURVEYOR
RESIDENT OF BELAGHATTA GRAMA
THURUVANUR HOBLI
CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRAKASH R, GARASANGI, ADV., FOR
SRI B.B. PATIL, ADV. FOR R-1;
R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
2
THIS CRL.P. FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE FIR IN CR.NO.2/2023, FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2
BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.1 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
P.S., CHITRADURGA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7(a) OF P.C ACT
PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
COURT, CHITRADURGA VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN THE ABOVE
CASE.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESEVED ON
19.04.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ORDER ON
30.04.2024 THIS DAY,THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Accused no.1 is before this Court under Section
482 of Cr.PC with a prayer to quash the FIR in Crime
No.2/2023 registered by Lokayuktha Police, Chitradurga,
for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'P.C.Act'),
which is now pending before the Court of Prl. District &
Sessions Judge, Chitradurga.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. Facts leading to filing of this petition narrated
briefly are, the first informant who is a private surveyor
had purchased site bearing No.46, Old Khatha No.781,
present panchayath Khatha No.960, carved out of Sy.
Nos.108/1 & 108/2 of Belgatta village, Chitradurga,
totally measuring 111.48 sq. mtrs. under a registered
3
sale deed from one Radhakrishna Reddy. He had
subsequently filed an application dated 11.10.2022 for
transfer of E-khatha. On 24.02.2023, the petitioner who
was working as Panchayath Development Officer of the
jurisdictional Gram Panchayath along with his staff had
visited the site for the purpose of measurement. It is
alleged that on the said date, petitioner had demanded
illegal gratification from the first informant for changing
the revenue records in his name. Since the first
informant did not intend to pay the illegal gratification
demanded by the petitioner, he had approached the
Lokayuktha Police, Chitradurga, and informed the
Inspector of Lokayuktha Police about the demand made
by the petitioner. The Lokayuktha Police had handed over
him a voice recorder and had asked him to record the
conversation. Thereafter, the first informant had once
again approached the petitioner and the petitioner had
raised a demand for payment of Rs.10,000/- as bribe.
This conversation between the petitioner and the first
informant was recorded in the voice recorder and on
28.02.2023, the first informant had submitted a
4
complaint, based on which, FIR in Crime No.2/2023 was
registered by the Lokayutkha Police against the petitioner
for the aforesaid offence. On the same day, a pre-trap
mahazar was prepared and a trap was also successfully
conducted on the same day at about 4.40 p.m. and the
petitioner was caught red-handed while receiving the
bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- from the first informant.
The bribe amount which was recovered from the pocket
of the petitioner was subjected to panchanama, and
thereafter, the petitioner was arrested and produced
before the jurisdictional court and remanded to judicial
custody. Being aggrieved by the FIR registered against
him, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case
at the instance of one Hanumantha Reddy who is the
President of the Gram Panchayath. He submits that the
petitioner had not made any demand for payment of
bribe amount and the demand made by him was for
payment of fees for change of khatha and also other
applicable fees. In the conversation that was recorded by
5
the first informant, this aspect of the matter is very clear.
He submits that immediately after the alleged trap, the
petitioner has given a statement in support of his defence
and the same is self-explanatory. He submits that the
amount recovered from the pocket of the petitioner was
handed over to him by the first informant for the purpose
of payment of requisite fee for change of khatha. He
submits that the conversion is not recorded in a mobile
phone, and on the other hand, the records do not clearly
indicate how the conversation was recorded. In support
of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment
of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Misc. Criminal
Case No.10053/2021 (Narendra Mishra Vs The State of
Madhya Pradesh & another) disposed of on 23.02.2022.
He has also placed reliance on the orders passed by the
coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.915/2022 (Mr.
N.Thejas Kumar Vs The State of Karnataka & another)
disposed of on 21.03.2022 and Crl.P.No.4807/2022
(R.Nagashayana Vs Babu Reddy.G.T. & another) disposed
of on 16.05.2023.
6
5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for
respondent no.1 who has filed statement of objections
has strongly opposed the petition. He submits that after
the first informant had approached the Lokayuktha
Police, they had handed over him a voice recorder and
also had instructed him how to operate the same.
Thereafter, the conversation between the petitioner and
the first informant was recorded in the voice recorder and
the transcription of the said conversation is noted down
in the pre-trap mahazar which was prepared on
28.02.2023. A reading of the said conversation would
clearly go to show that the petitioner had demanded
bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- and on the very same day,
the petitioner was also successfully trapped while
receiving the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- from the first
informant and the bribe amount had been recovered from
the petitioner's shirt pocket and the recovered bribe
amount was subjected to panchanama. He submits that
the work of the first informant was pending with the
petitioner and the material on record prima facie shows
that there was a demand and acceptance of the bribe
7
amount by the petitioner. Accordingly, he prays to
dismiss the petition.
6. Respondent no.2 who is served in the present case
has remained unrepresented.
7. The material on record would go to show that the
application filed by the first informant for transfer of E-
Khatha in his name in respect of the property which he
had purchased under a registered sale deed, was pending
before the jurisdictional gram panchayath and the
petitioner who was the Panchayath Development Officer
had visited the site, and thereafter, made a demand for
payment of bribe. The first informant, therefore, had
approached the Lokayuktha Police who had requested
him to record his conversation with the petitioner and
had handed over him a voice recorder. Subsequently, the
first informant had recorded his conversation with the
petitioner and the transcription of the said conversation
is part of the pre-trap mahazar.
8. A perusal of the transcription of the conversation
between the petitioner and the first informant clearly
8
goes to show that there was a demand made by the
petitioner for payment of bribe amount. Since the parties
have negotiated to settle the amount of demand, the
contention of the petitioner that the amount demanded
was towards payment of applicable fee cannot be
accepted. A reading of the conversation would also go to
show that the petitioner has stated that the total fees
could be Rs.6,500/-. The demand made by the petitioner
appears to be in addition to the applicable fee and the
negotiation between the parties was in respect of this
amount which was demanded additional to the applicable
fee. The petitioner has been successfully trapped by the
Lokayuktha Police on the date of registration of the FIR
itself and from his pocket, the currency notes of
Rs.10,000/- which were handed over to the first
informant under the pre-trap mahazar has been
recovered. Therefore, it is very clear that in the present
case, there is a demand as well as acceptance of the
bribe amount by the petitioner. The explanation offered
by the petitioner immediately after the trap does not tally
with the conversation between the parties which was
9
recorded prior to the trap. The material on record would
also go to show that the work of the first informant was
pending in the Gram Panchayath, of which the petitioner
was the Panchayath Development Officer.
9. In Thejas Kumar's case supra, the coordinate
bench of this Court having found that the material on
record in the said case reflected that no work of the first
informant was pending with the petitioner therein and
conversation between the parties was not recorded, and
there was absolutely no material to show that the
demand for payment of bribe was made, had quashed
the FIR that was registered against the petitioner therein
for the offences punishable under the P.C.Act. In the said
case, except the statement of the first informant in his
complaint, there was no other prima facie material
against the petitioner. It is under these circumstances,
the coordinate bench of this Court had quashed the FIR
in Thejas Kumar's case supra.
10. In Nagashayana's case supra, another coordinate
bench of this Court has quashed the FIR that was
10
registered against Nagashayana for the offences
punishable under the P.C.Act taking into consideration
that there was no material to show that there was a
demand or acceptance of the bribe amount. In the said
case, it was also an admitted fact that there was no work
pending before the accused that related to the first
informant. It is in this background, FIR was quashed in
Nagashayana's case supra.
11. In Narendra Mishra's case supra, the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh has quashed the charge sheet that was
registered for the offences punishable under the P.C.Act
on the ground that except the written complaint of the
complainant, there was no material to support he
allegation against the accused. In paragraph 5.4 of the
said judgment, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, has
observed as under:
"5.4 In an offence punishable u/S. 7 of
the PC Act, the least that is required of the
Investigating Agency is to collect implicative
evidence/material to support the allegation
contained in the written complaint. In absence of
any such supportive implicative
material/evidence, if an offence is registered,
11
merely on the basis of written complaint of
complainant, then disastrous consequence can
befall upon all public servants thereby exposing
them to registration of offence and filing of
charge-sheet. A written complaint can be made
by any person who nurses a grudge or prejudice
against the public servant. The public servant
would stand exposed to criminal prosecution on
the mere making of a written complaint. This
scenario would led to chaos in the administration
of service. The public servant shall not be able to
discharge his official duties in a free and fair
manner due to the ever present feeling of lurking
fear in the mind that any act of discharge of
official duties can trigger a criminal prosecution."
12. Therefore, the judgments on which reliance has
been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in
support of his arguments cannot be made applicable to
the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the
present case, the material on record prima facie goes to
show that the work of the first informant was pending
before the petitioner and the material on record would
also go to show that conversation between the petitioner
and the first informant reflects that there was a demand
made by the petitioner for payment of bribe amount and
subsequently the petitioner was successfully trapped
12
while receiving the bribe amount from the first informant.
In addition to the same, the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/-
which was handed over to the first informant by the
Lokayuktha Police under the pre-trap mahazar was
recovered from the pocket of the petitioner after he was
successfully trapped by the Lokayuktha Police.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE VS STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS - 2021 SCC OnLine 315, at
paragraph 57, has observed as under:
"57. From the aforesaid decisions of this
Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council
in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the
following principles of law emerge:
i) Police has the statutory right and duty
under the relevant provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of
the Code to investigate into cognizable offences;
ii) Courts would not thwart any
investigation into the cognizable offences;
iii) However, in cases where no cognizable
offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the
13
first information report the Court will not permit
an investigation to go on;
iv) The power of quashing should be
exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the
‘rarest of rare cases’. (The rarest of rare cases
standard in its application for quashing under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the
norm which has been formulated in the context of
the death penalty, as explained previously by this
Court);
v) While examining an FIR/complaint,
quashing of which is sought, the court cannot
embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made
in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be
scuttled at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be
an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from
usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the
two organs of the State operate in two specific
spheres of activities. The inherent power of the
court is, however, recognised to secure the ends
of justice or prevent the above of the process by
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
14
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the
police are complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-
interference would result in miscarriage of justice,
the Court and the judicial process should not
interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of
the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction
on the Court to act according to its whims or
caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an
encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and
details relating to the offence reported.
Therefore, when the investigation by the police is
in progress, the court should not go into the
merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must
be permitted to complete the investigation. It
would be premature to pronounce the conclusion
based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does
not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts
to abuse of process of law. During or after
investigation, if the investigating officer finds that
there is no substance in the application made by
the complainant, the investigating officer may file
an appropriate report/summary before the
learned Magistrate which may be considered by
the learned Magistrate in accordance with the
known procedure;
15
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
is very wide, but conferment of wide power
requires the court to be cautious. It casts an
onerous and more diligent duty on the court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court,
if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters
of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by
law, more particularly the parameters laid down
by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra)
and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to
quash the FIR/complaint; and xv) When a prayer
for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged
accused, the court when it exercises the power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider
whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose
the commission of a cognizable offence and is not
required to consider on merits whether the
allegations make out a cognizable offence or not
and the court has to permit the investigating
agency/police to investigate the allegations in the
FIR.
14. In the case of SKODA AUTO VOLKSWAGEN
(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED VS STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH & OTHERS - (2021)5 SCC 795, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in paragraphs 41 & 42, has observed as
under:
16
"41. As cautioned by this Court in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the power of quashing
should be exercised very sparingly and with
circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare
cases. While examining a complaint, the quashing
of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon
an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in
the complaint.
42. In S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat, this
Court again cautioned that criminal proceedings
ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage.
Quashing of a complaint should rather be an
exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. In
S.M. Datta, this Court held that if a perusal of the
first information report leads to disclosure of an
offence even broadly, law courts are barred from
usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the
two organs of the State operate in two specific
spheres of activities and one ought not to tread
over the other sphere."
15. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Neeharika's case supra and Skoda
Auto's case supra, if the material available on record in
the present case is appreciated, which prima facie
discloses the offence punishable under the provisions of
17
P.C. Act, the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be
granted. The prosecution has placed on record sufficient
material which prima facie makes out a case for the
alleged offence against the petitioner, and therefore, the
investigation becomes necessary. Under the
circumstances, I do not see any good ground to entertain
this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
KK