Karnataka High Court
Sri. Dayananda Swamy. G. N vs State Of Karnataka on 31 March, 2023
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1229 OF 2023
BETWEEN
SRI. DAYANANDA SWAMY. G. N.
S/O LT NANJUNDASWAMY
AGED 48 YEARS
R/AT NO 1, 9TH CEROSS
CQAL LAYOUT, ATTURU
YELAHANKA
BENGALURU - 560 064
EARLIER WORKING AS
ASSISTANT SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OF POLICE
EAST DIVISION
BANGALURU - 560 064
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SIDDHARTH B MUCHANDI , ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE
BANGALURU
REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALURE 560001
2. SRI BHARATH SHETTY
S/O KARUNAKAR SHETTY
AGED 36 YEARS
R/AT NO.558, 4TH MAIN ROAD
2
4TH CROSS ROAD, 4TH STAGE
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
BANGALURU 560064
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B. B. PATIL, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF TAKING
COGNIZANCE DATED 23.08.2022 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
IN SPL.C.C.NO.1947/2022 ON THE FILE OF XXIII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE
(P.C.ACT, BENGALURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 7(a)
OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT (ANNEXURE-D)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.02.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in Spl. C.C. No.1947/2022 pending on the file of the 23rd Additional City Civil And Sessions Judge and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act').
3
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Counsel for respondent No.1.
3. The case of prosecution is that on the complaint of 2nd respondent, the then ACB police registered FIR in Crime No.14/2021 on 14.06.2021 against the petitioner-accused. It was alleged by respondent No.2 that he was doing the real estate business and a case was registered against him in Kodigehalli police for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC on 01.04.2021. After knowing the same, the petitioner-accused working in the DCP office contacted the complainant stating that he will influence the Kodigehalli police for filing B final report against the complainant and hence, he demanded Rs.10.00 lakhs as bribe. Accordingly, the complainant contacted his friend Dayananda Kumar on 06.04.2022 and his friend paid Rs.5.00 lakhs to the petitioner-accused and undertook to pay the remaining Rs.5.00 lakhs. Subsequently, the complainant was 4 released on bail. On 05.06.2021, the petitioner-accused telephoned to the complainant asking him to come near the DCP office and when the complainant met the petitioner-accused, the complainant was informed that there was one more complaint filed in Yalahanka Upanagar police and there was fabrication of documents in respect of land/site Nos.8, 9 and 10 of Sy. No.16/1. It was also informed that the owner of the aforesaid sites was not the real owner and therefore, he demanded removing Rs.5.00 lakhs in respect of filing B-final report in respect of the case in Kodigehali police and also Rs.50.00 lakhs for closing the matter in respect of Yalahanka Upanagar police. The petitioner-accused threatened the complainant that if the said amount is not paid, the complainant will be named in the rowdy sheet and file number of cases against him. And also, the petitioner-accused managed to register an FIR against the complainant in crime NO.96/2021 on 08.06.2021. Therefore, the complaint came to be filed against the petitioner-accused. After registering the case, the police arrested the petitioner-accused and he was 5 released on bail. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed, which is under challenge.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no demand and acceptance of bribe and except the oral statement of the complainant, there is no evidence on record. Even otherwise, there was delay of 64 days in filing the complaint and there is no explanation for the delay. It is further contended that the mobile phone video clippings produced by the complainant is inadmissible and it cannot be considered. Absolutely, there is no material against the petitioner-accused for framing charge sheet and hence, prayed for quashing the charge sheet.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1- Lokayukta objected the petition and contended that during the investigation, the police have recorded the statement of one Dayananda Kumar and Dr. Narendra kumar for making Rs.5.00 lakhs to the petitioner-accused in his office on 06.04.2021. Subsequent to that, the complainant has 6 paid the remaining amount by pledging the gold. There is material to show that the petitioner-accused managed to file one more case against the complainant by demanding Rs.50.00 lakhs and Rs.5.00 lakhs in order to file B-final report in a case registered at Kodigehalli police. The video clippings available were sent to FSL, but the report is not received. There is sufficient material available for framing charge. Therefore, prayed for dismissing the petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the records, which reveal that the Kodigehalli police have registered an FIR against the complainant. For filing B-final report, the petitioner-accused, being an ASI rank police officer, working in the DCP office, demanded Rs.10.00 lakhs from the complainant and the complainant has paid Rs.5.00 lakhs through his friend Dayananda Kumar on 06.04.2021. In this regard, the statement of Dayananda Kumar and Dr. Narendra Kumar reveals that, at the request of the complainant-Bharath Shetty, Dayananda Kumar contacted the petitioner-accused. Since 7 Dayananda Kumar was not having Rs.5.00 lakhs, he requested Dr. Narendra Kumar for giving Rs.3.00 lakhs. Accordingly, on 06.04.2021, the said Narendra Kumar, collected Rs.3.00 lakhs from Dr. Nadrenda Kumar and himself contributed Rs.2.00 lakhs. In all, totaling Rs.5.00 lakhs, Dayananda Kumar paid to the petitioner-accused in the office. The statement of both witnesses and the phone CDR of the petitioner-accused reveals that the petitioner- accused contacted Dayananda Kumar on 06.04.2021. Though the investigation officer could not collected the CCTV footage in respect of the incident, but subsequently, the complainant has produced the video clipping from the mobile phone which was seized and sent to FSL. the report from the FSL is pending, which connects the petitioner- accused with the crime for having demanded and accepted the payment of bribe.
7. It is further available on record that, on 05.06.2021, once again, the petitioner-accused demanded Rs.5.00 lakhs through the mobile phone. When the 8 complainant went near the office of the DCP, the petitioner-accused said to be further demanded Rs.50.00 lakhs for closing the matter in respect of complaint registered at Yelahanka Upanagar police station. The CDR produced by the investigation officer reveals that the petitioner-accused contacted the complainant through is mobile phone on the said day and subsequently, the complaint came to be filed on 09.06.2021.
8. It is also borne out from the records that the petitioner-accused managed to register one more FIR against the complainant in crime No.96/2021 on 08.06.2021 which circumstance, clearly reveals the demand made by the petitioner-accused which is punishable under Section 7(a) of the Act. In respect of admissibility of the CDR and the mobile phone video clippings, they have to be considered only after the trial. The admissibility and inadmissibility, cannot be appreciated by the High Court by conducting the mini trial while exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 9 Therefore, I am of the view that the there is sufficient material placed on record against the petitioner-accused for framing of charge. Hence, the petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, this petition filed by the petitioner- accused is dismissed.
Pending I.A., if any, does not survive for consideration. It is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cs/-