Karnataka High Court
Sri Manjunatha vs State By Lokayuktha Police on 26 February, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.504 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. MANJUNATHA
@ MANJAPPA. A
S/O CHITRANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
DEVARAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
DEVARAHALLI,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA.V.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE
REPRESENTED BY
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
DAVANAGERE - 577 213.
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 01.
2 . SRI. SANTHOSH B.H.
S/O BILLAPPA,
2
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT DEVARAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213.
..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B B PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1/LOKAYUKTHA;
R2 - SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
COMPLAINT DATED 14.09.2022 LODGED BY THE SECOND
RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-B) AND THE IMPUGNED FIR
REGISTERED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN CR.NO.6/2022
DATED 14.09.2022 AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 7(a) OF P.C ACT FILED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A) AND ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO PENDING BEFORE THE
HONBLE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
DAVANAGERE IN CR.NO.6/2022 (ANNEXURE-J).
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 31.01.2024 THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. read with Article 226 of Constitution of India for quashing the FIR in Crime No.6/2022 registered by the Karnataka Lokayuktha police, Davanagere, on 14.9.2022 for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'P.C. Act').
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special counsel for Lokayuktha. The respondent No.2 has remained absent.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of respondent No.2, the Lokayuktha police registered FIR against him on 28.12.2022. It is alleged that the complainant was contractor and into contract work with the Public authorities, along with his friend Manjunath. They have done some work under 'NAREGA scheme' at Village Panchayath Devarahalli Channagiri Taluk in Sy.No.76, during the year 2020-21. There was tender called 4 by the Competent Authority. Accordingly, one H.D.Mallikarjun, contractor obtained the contract under the tender. On behalf of Mallikarjun, the contractual work was done by the complainant and his friend Manjunath. Accordingly, the petitioner-Manjunath released the amount of Rs.18,67,832/- after deducting the taxes and the remaining amount was payable by the authority of Rs.1,05,000/-. In order to release amount of Rs.1,05,000/- , the present petitioner-PDO, said to have demanded Rs.93,000/- as bribe. On 9.9.2022 at about 1.30 p.m., the complainant and his friend Manjunath approached the petitioner-PDO for releasing the balance amount. For that, he has demanded Rs.93,000/- and then they were unable to pay so much amount and the complainant has bargained for Rs.50,000/- and the petitioner agreed to receive Rs.60,000/-, at the intervention of one Nagarajappa. It is further alleged that on 12.9.2022, when the complainant and his friend were proceeding on the bike, at 12.45 p.m., the petitioner called the complainant's friend and asked why the amount was not yet paid. Again on 13.9.2022, when 5 the complainant and his brother Nagarajappa were going to the police station at 10.59 a.m., once again, the petitioner called the complainant asking as to why the amount was not yet paid and asked him to come and pay. The complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, hence filed complaint to the Lokayuktha police on 14.9.2022.
4. After receiving the complaint, the police registered the FIR in Crime No.1/2022 (subsequently they corrected in the FIR as Crime No.6/2022 but not made correction in the endorsement made on the complaint). Subsequently, a trap was laid along with the panchas and a pre-trap panchanama was prepared and the amount of Rs.60,000/- was paid by the complainant to the police and instruction was given to the panchas including the shadow witness. All went to the office of the accused on 15.9.2022 at 11.30 a.m. The accused was not available till 12.30 p.m., as he was held up in the meeting, then they waited for the accused till 6.00 p.m., in the panchayath office and they were unable to trace 6 out the whereabouts of the accused petitioner. Therefore, they came back due to failure of the trap.
5. It is further case of the prosecution, that once again the police prepared trap on 16.9.2022, they went to the office of the accused at 10.00 a.m., and waited till 5.00 p.m. The accused did not come into his contact either through telephone or in person. Therefore, once again the trap was failed and they came back. Subsequently, the police dropped the trap proceedings. Being aggrieved with the registering of the FIR, the petitioner is before this court by challenging the same.
6. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner has strenuously contended that the FIR and investigation against the petitioner is not sustainable, there is no demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused/petitioner, the alleged trap was failed. Such being the case, question of conducting investigation does not arise. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731 in case of Neeraj Dutta Vs 7 State (NCT of Delhi) and also in case of Thippeswamy B.M. Vs State of Karnataka in W.P.No.15644/2022 (GM-RES) passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, hence prayed for quashing the FIR.
7. Per contra learned counsel for respondent has strenuously contended that mere demand of bribe also is an offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the P.C. Act, as per the explanation to the 7(a) of the P.C. Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court not considered the grey area that the demand also is an offence. Therefore, the very demand made by the petitioner has been recorded by the complainant through his mobile phone, which clearly demonstrates the bribe demanded by the accused persons. Therefore, the matter requires to be investigated by the police and file charge sheet. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.
8. On perusal of the records, the complainant said to be the friend of the contractor who said to be done contractual work with the village panchayat, where the 8 petitioner was PDO under the 'NAREGA Scheme' and the petitioner already said to be paid Rs.18,67,000/- to the complainant's friend. There was arrears of Rs.1,05,000/- towards the bill payment, for that, Rs.93,000/- said to be demanded by the accused for releasing Rs.1,05,000/-. Obviously, the fact itself cannot be believable since for releasing Rs.1,05,000/- demanding Rs.93,000/- is totally unbelievable. That apart, if the work is already done, and amount was already paid, the question of demanding bribe for releasing the amount cannot be acceptable. There is no post-paid concept in P.C. Act, as there is no work pending with the accused.
9. That apart, twice the Police set up the trap, one is on 15.09.2022 and another is on 16.09.2022, both the times, the trap was failed and even the police team or the complainant were unable to contact the accused and they have not at all met the accused-petitioner. Therefore, the Police dropped the trap proceedings.
9
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta stated supra and the Constitutional Bench has held that the demand and acceptance are sine qua non for proving the case punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held at paragraph No.3 that proof of demand is sine qua non for the offence to be established under Section 7(13)(1)(d)(ii) of the Act and the proof of demand, the offence under two Sections cannot be brought home. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification of recovery there of, in the absence of proof of demand could not be sufficient to bring home the charge under Section 7(13)(i)(ii) of the Act. After the judgment of the constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, once again the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the subsequent judgment of Neeraj Dutta's case, has considered the legal position at paragraph No.8 of the judgment and finally at paragraph No.10 has held that: 10
" The demand for gratification and the acceptance there of are sine qua non offence punishable under Section 7 of P.C. Act"
11. Based upon the above said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in another judgment by the same Bench in the case of Soundarajan vs. State in Crl.A.No.1592/2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken the similar view at paragraph No.9, of the judgment which is as under:
"9. We have considered the submissions. It is well settled that for establishing the commission of an offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, proof of demand of gratification and acceptance of the gratification is a sine qua non. Moreover, the Constitution Bench in the case of Neeraj Dutta has reiterated that the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act can be invoked only on proof of facts in issue, namely, the demand of gratification by the accused and the acceptance thereof."11
12. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of P.Manjuanth vs. State by Karnataka Lokayuktha and Another reported case in W.P.No.10027/2022 (GM- RES) dated 16.11.2022 has also taken similar view and quashed the criminal proceedings. Subsequently, the same Co-ordinate Bench in a similar case in W.P. 15644/2022 in the case of Thippeswamy B.M. vs. State by Karnataka Lokayuktha and Another dated 13.1.2023, a trap was failed and the Co-ordinate Bench has quashed the FIR.
13. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, this Court also held in the case of N. Thejas Kumar vs. State and Another in W.P.No.915/2022 (GM-RES) dated 21.03.2022 that the demand and acceptance is sine qua non for proving the charges against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act.
14. The respondent counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Mumbai High Court in the case of Pandurang Shinde vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 12 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 881 and the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Singh vs. State and others dated 03.07.1998.
15. To the fact and circumstances of the case, the said judgments which are delivered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and Mumbai High Court are not applicable to the case on hand, since the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the latest judgment in the case of Neeraj Dutta has twice passed the judgment and the Division Bench has categorically held that demand and acceptance are sine qua non for constituting the offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act. That apart, the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Thippeswamy's case stated supra has quashed the criminal proceedings in similar set of facts.
16. Here in this case, the demand was not at all shown in any telephonic conversation, except the oral complaint of the complainant and trap also was not successful, twice. Such being the case, there is no case 13 made out against the accused for conducing investigation for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act.
17. That part, the police made endorsement in the complaint and registered the case in Crime No.1/2022 and in the FIR they have corrected as Crime No.7/2022. The endorsement in the complaint Crime Number stated in the complaint and the FIR contradicts each other. The same is not at all corrected by the complainant-police. Therefore, the petitioner has made out a case for quashing the FIR.
18. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime No.6/2022 registered by the Karnataka Lokayuktha police, Davangere, against the petitioner is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE AKV/GBB CT:SK