Karnataka High Court
Mr. Shivaprakash S N vs The State Karnataka Lokayukta Police on 1 March, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4680 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
MR. SHIVAPRAKASH S N
S/O NINGARAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER,
SAKALESHPURA,
PRESENTLY R/O NEAR MANIKANTA STORE,
VIJAYANAGAR, 2ND STAGE, HASSAN.
PERMANENT R/O SEEBALLI VILLAGE,
BELAWADI POST, ARAKALGUD TALUK - 573 113.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.N. PHANEENDRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE,
POLICE INSPECTOR,
HASSAN - 573 201. HASSAN DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.
2. ARCHANA
D/O RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
CHIKKASATTIGAL VILLAGE,
ARAKERE POST, SAKALESHPURA TALUK - 573 127.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. LETHIF, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR
R1/LOKAYUKTHA;
R2 - SERVED)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ENTIRE
INVESTIGATION IN CR.NO.3/2022 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 7(A) OF
P.C ACT AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.02.2024 THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the FIR in Crime No.3/2022 registered by respondent No.1-the then Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), now Karnataka Lokayuktha Police, Hassan, for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption (Amended) Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act').
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Counsel for respondent No.1- Lokayuktha. Respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented. 3
3. The case of prosecution is that the complainant Archana filed a complaint on 05.05.2022 before the ACB, alleging that her mother Puttamma was working as an Anganawadi teacher in Chikkasathigal village, when she died during the service on 05.07.2021. The complainant filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground before the petitioner, who was the Child Development Project Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'CDPO'). The same was returned back by the CDPO to one Smt. Geetha, an employee of the same department, for retention certificate. Once again, the complainant obtained retention certificate and submitted to the CDPO. After a month, the complainant called Smt. Geetha on 08.04.2022 regarding the progress, for that, she stated that the file was not with her. Then, she called one Smt. Sudha on 26.04.2022 and requested as to why there was delay and why the file was in the CDPO. The said Sudha requested the complainant to come and meet her. On meeting, the said Sudha demanded Rs.20,000/- for sending recommendation. For that, the complainant bargained and told that she would pay 4 Rs.10,000/- at the first instance and thereafter, she will pay another Rs.10,000/-. The complainant was not willing to pay the bribe. Hence, she lodged the complaint to the ACB police. The police registered the FIR and thereafter, a trap was set up on the same day on 05.05.2022.
4. It is further alleged that the police along with panchas went near the house of Smt. Sudha and the complainant telephoned to Smt. Sudha stating that she was waiting in front of her house. Then the complainant joined the said Sudha, and thereafter, both of them, went in an auto rickshaw towards the office. The police team also followed them. The police waited near the CDPO for signal from the complainant. The complainant gave signal at 2.50 p.m. by coming out of the CDPO office. Then the complainant handed over money to Smt. Sudha stating that the petitioner-CDPO told to hand over the money to her. Then, Smt. Sudha received money, and both Sudha and the complainant went to the CDPO Office. The said Smt. Sudha kept the money on the table of the petitioner-accused No.1 5 and immediately, the complainant informed the police by signal. Then the amount, which was kept on the table, was seized under panchanama. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested, and the said Smt. Sudha was also arrested by the police. The matter is under investigation. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court by challenging the FIR.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended on the main ground that, as per the complaint, the demand was made in April 2022, i.e. on 26.04.2022. The complaint was required to be filed within 7 days of the demand, but the complaint was filed on 05.05.2022, i.e. after more than 10 days. The second contention was that there was no demand of acceptance by the petitioner-accused No.1. The allegation is that accused No.2-Sudha who demanded and received the money, has kept the same on the table and it was seized under panchanama. But, it was not accepted by accused No.1. The hand wash also proves that the petitioner-accused No.1 has not accepted any money. The hand of accused No.2 turned into pink. Therefore, the 6 question of conducting investigation and filing the charge sheet against the petitioner is abuse of process of law. The delay was not explained by the complainant. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of one MAHESH P.S. Vs. STATE OF KARNATKA AND ANOTHER in Criminal Petition No.11547/2022 decided on 24.05.2023 and N. THEJAS KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER in Criminal Petition No.915/2022 decided on 21.03.2022.
6. Per contra, learned Special Counsel for the respondent-Lokayuktha has contended that the delay was explained that her father was unwell and there was telephone conversation between accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused No.1 instructed the complainant to hand over money to accused No.2 Therefore, the amount was paid to accused No.2. There is connection between accused Nos.1 and 2 regarding the demand and acceptance. The matter is required for investigation. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.
7
7. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perused the records.
8. As per the complaint, the complainant Archana filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground as Anganawadi Teacher in the office of the petitioner, who is the CDPO. The application was lying with Sudha-accused No.2, who had to recommend for appointment. Therefore, she has demanded Rs.20,000/- for recommendation and bargained for Rs.10,000/-. As per the complaint, the application was filed long back in July 2021 itself. On 08.04.2022, the complainant contacted accused No.2-Sudha. Finally, the demand was made on 26.04.2022 by accused No.2, but the complaint was made on 05.05.2022. There is delay of more than 10 days in filing the complaint.
9. As per Section 8 to proviso-2 of the P.C. Act, if any person has compelled for any demand for undue advantage, 8 the matter should be reported to the investigating agency within a period of 7 days from the date of giving such undue advantage. But, here, in this case, there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint.
10. As per the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no demand and acceptance by petitioner-accused No.1. Admittedly, accused No.2 was said to be demanded Rs.20,000/- on 26.04.2022 and the complaint was lodged on 05.05.2022. A trap set up was made on the same day. The complainant took the bribe amount to the house of accused No.2 and gave it to her. Thereafter, both of them, went to CDPO office. Later, the police went to the office of the CDPO where the amount was kept on the table of the CDPO, which was not accepted by the petitioner-accused No.1 (CDPO). Even he has not touched the amount and it was lying on a paper, which was kept on the table and the police seized the same. The hand wash of accused No.2 with sodium carbonate solution turned into pink colour, which reveals that the petitioner-accused 9 No.1 has not accepted the bribe amount. Even, the police have asked petitioner-accused No.1 to take the money and hand over to the police, but the petitioner-accused No.1 has not touched the money, which clearly reveals that he has not accepted the bribe amount.
11. That apart, the amount was received by accused No.2-Smt. Sudha near her house. There is no nexus between the demand and acceptance by the petitioner- accused No.1. Even the petitioner-accused No.1 never demanded any bribe from the complainant as per the complaint. On the other hand, accused No.2 has demanded and accepted the bribe. Though it was seized from the table of petitioner-accused No.1, but he had not touched it and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner-accused No.2 has told accused No.2 to keep the money on the table. If the petitioner said to keep the bribe amount on the table and when the complainant went out of the office chamber after keeping on the table, the petitioner-could have taken 10 and kept in his pocket or in almirah or he could have touched it, but nothing has happened in this case.
12. It is only the say of the complainant that petitioner-accused No.1 told accused No.2 to receive and also told accused No.2 to keep the money on the table, etc, but nothing is found in the audio recording. Therefore, there is a clear case of implication of the petitioner-accused No.1 falsely by the complainant in this case.
13. That apart, the file was also not in the custody of the petitioner-accused No.1 and it was with accused No.2. The conversation was also held also between accused No.2 and the complainant, and there is no conversation between accused No.1 and complainant.
14. In the similar case, this Court quashed the FIR in the case of MAHESH P.S., cited supra, by considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NEERAJ DUTTA Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) reported in 2022 11 SCC OnLine SC 1724, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the demand and acceptance are sine qua non for quashing the offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act. The complaint should be filed within 7 days from the date of demand. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta, cited supra, has also taken a similar view and the same Division Bench in the case of SOUNDARAJAN Vs. STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIGILANCE, ANTI-
CORRUPTION, DINDIGUL in Crl.A.No.1592/2022 decided on 17.04.2023, has held that the demand and acceptance of sine qua non has caused the offence punishable under Section 7of P.C. Act. The same view was taken by this Court in the case of Thejas Kumar, cited supra, and quashed the FIR.
15. In the recent case, in K SHANTHAMMA Vs. STATE OF TELENGANA reported in (2022) 4 SCC 574, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also taken the similar view 12 that the demand and acceptance is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. Here, in this case, there is no demand and acceptance by the petitioner-accused No.1 and there is delay of more than 7 days in lodging the complaint. The hand wash was also not turned into pink colour. Such being the case, conducting investigation against the petitioner-accused No.1 is nothing but the abuse of process of law in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS VS. CH. BAJAN LAL AND OTHERS reported in 1992 SCC Suppl. (1) 335.
16. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The FIR against the petitioner-accused No.1 in Crime No.3/2022 registered by the then ACB, now Karnataka Lokayuktha Police, Hassan, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE CS_CT:SK