SRI.CHANDRAKANTH REDDY CHATNALLI v. Karnataka

Judgment

#1. SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE – 560 001

#2. THE STATE BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE REP. BY ITS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BIDAR – 585 401 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:5777 WP No. 200687 of 2025 HC-KAR

SRI.SATHISH S/O KASHINATH NOUBADE AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT KEB COLONY SIDDARUDA MATA (GUMPA) BIDAR – 585 401 (BY SRI.ARUN SHYAM, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI.GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, SPL. PP FOR R2; SRI.MANUR ASHOK KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O 01.04.2025) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED COMPLAINT DATED 19.11.2024 (ANNEXURE-B) AND THE IMPUGNED FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.08/2024 DATED 19.11.2024 (ANNEXURE-C) AND ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMPLAINT DATED 19.11.2024 GIVEN BY THE R3 (ANNEXURE-B) AND IMPUGNED FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 19.11.2024 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7(a) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 REGISTERED BY THE R2 IN CRIME NO.08/2024, INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER – ACCUSED NO.2 IS CONCERNED (ANNEXURE-C) AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE SPECIAL PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BIDAR AND ETC., THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 06.06.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:5777 WP No. 200687 of 2025 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)

#1. The petitioner, being accused No.2, has approached this Court by invoking writ jurisdiction, seeking for quashing the FIR in Crime No.08/2024 registered by respondent No.2 – police, for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘PC Act’). Brief facts of the case:

#2. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Town Planner in the Department of Urban Development, Bengaluru / respondent No.1. Thereafter, he was promoted to different posts. At the time when the alleged incident had taken place, he was working as a Assistant Director of Town Planning, Bidar Urban Development Authority, Bidar. One Vittal Rao stated to have applied for sanctioning of the layout plan in respect of the land owned by him as the same had to be converted through the Department. It is further stated - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:5777 WP No. 200687 of 2025 HC-KAR that, 60% of the plan was not accorded in respect of the sanctioned layout plan and it has to be released by the authority. When respondent No.3, who complainant, approached the accused Nos.1 and 2, it is stated that the said accused had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.50,00,000/- to release 60% of the layout plan. Being aggrieved by the same, complainant had approached the Lokayukta - Police and informed the same. The complainant was instructed to act under the instructions of the respondent No.2 - police.

#3. It is further stated that, the complainant along with the shadow witness had been to the office of the accused and the complainant stated to have paid illegal gratification to accused No.3, under the instructions of accused No.2. The amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, allegedly paid on the instructions of the accused No.2, was seized in the presence of the panch witness from accused No.3. Therefore, a case came to be registered against accused Nos.1 to 3.

#4. Heard Sri M.S. Bhagwat, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Sathish Kumar D. Gadkari, learned counsel for the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:5777 WP No. 200687 of 2025 HC-KAR petitioner, Sri. Aruna Shyam, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Gourish S. Khashampur, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.2 and Sri Manur Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

#5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that FIR came to be registered against the petitioner and another accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the PC Act. However, the ingredient of the said Act has not been made out on the given set of facts and circumstances.

#6. It is further submitted that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court consistently held that, to substantiate the provision under Section 7(a) of the PC Act, there must be a demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification, which is sine qua non. However, in the present case, though it appears that the accused Nos.1 and 2 have demanded a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-, ultimately the complainant agreed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as first installment and it was paid as illegal gratification to accused No.3, under the instruction of accused No.2. However, the CDR in respect of connecting accused Nos.2 and 3 together has not been - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:5777 WP No. 200687 of 2025 HC-KAR produced, nor collected by the investigating officer to demonstrate the nexus between accused Nos.2 and 3. Unless, it is shown that accused No.3 is connected with accused No.2, mere recovery of the amount from accused No.3 would not sufficient to indicate that the prosecution has demonstrated the ingredients of Section 7(a) of the PC Act. Even assuming that the accused would face the trial, the possibility of being convicted would be very bleak. Therefore, in order to secure the ends of justice and also avoid the abuse of process of law, it is necessary to allow the petition and quash the proceedings.

#7. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which are as under: i) ii) Madhushree Datta v. The State of Karnataka & Another1 R. Nagashayana v. Babu Reddy G.T. & Another2 iii) Babu Reddy G.T. v. R. Nagashayana & Another3 1 Crl.A.No.4884/2024 dated 24.01.2025 2 Crl.P.No.4807/2022 dated 16.05.2023 3 Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.15276/2023 dated 30.04.2024 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:5777 WP No. 200687 of 2025 HC-KAR iv) Shrikanth v. The State of Karnataka, By Lokayuktha Police4 R. Nagashayana v. Babu Reddy G.T. & Another5 v) vi) Imran Siddiqui v. State of Karnataka & Another6 vii) Sri Shrikant v. The State of Karnataka7

#8. Per contra, Sri Aruna Shyam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Gourish S. Khashampur, learned Special Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.2 - Lokayukta vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and he further submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable. Statement of objections is also filed on behalf of respondent No.2.

#9. It is further submitted that, in fact, the complainant had applied for sanction of layout plan in the converted land. 60% of the sites had to be released in favour of the complainant. When the complainant approached the petitioner and another to get the sites released, a demand for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as illegal gratification was made by the petitioner and another. 4 Crl.P.No.101560/2023 dated 20.12.2023 5 Crl.P.No.4807/2022 dated 16.05.2023 6 W.P.No.10023/2022 c/w. W.P.No.10029/2022 dated 26.07.2022 7 Crl.P.No.101560/2023 dated 20.12.2023 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:5777 WP No. 200687 of 2025 HC-KAR The complainant was instructed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as first installment and the balance had to be paid subsequently. As such, there was a conversation between the complainant and other two accused. The petitioner prima facie had demanded illegal gratification and under his instruction, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid to accused No.3. Therefore, at this stage, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings. The Investigating Officer has to collect some more materials on the subject matter. Therefore, the writ petition has to be dismissed. Having said thus, learned Senior Counsel prays to reject the petition.

#10. To substantiate his defence, he relied on the following judgments: a) b) c) Dr Subramaniam Swamy v. Dr Manmohan Singh8 State of Karnataka v. L.C. Nagaraj9 Sanju Rajan Nayar v. Jayaraj & Anr10 [ 8 AIR 2012 SC 1185 9 Crl.A.No.4118/2024 dated 01.10.2024 10 2024 SCC Online 582 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:5777 WP No. 200687 of 2025 HC-KAR

#11. Similarly, respondent No.3 also filed statement of objections and prays to dismiss the petition, by adopting the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2.

#12. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, it appears from the record that, the petitioner while working as a Assistant Director of Town Planning, Bidar Urban Development Authority, Bidar, in connivance with the other accused, who is arraigned as accused No.1, had demanded a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as illegal gratification to sanction or release the remaining sites in favour of the complainant. It is further noticed that, the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as first installment was given to accused No.3 and it was seized. The statement of accused No.3 was recorded. As per the said statement, the petitioner had been arraigned as one of the accused.

#13. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel is that the ingredient of Section 7(a) of the PC Act has to be proved by reading the averments of the complaint. Even on reading the averments of the present complaint, there - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:5777 WP No. 200687 of 2025 HC-KAR are omnibus, bald and baseless averments and the allegations made against the petitioner, which are not sufficient to hold him as a guilty, even if he faces the trial.

#14. Having considered the said submissions, if the averments of the complaint are perused, it would indicate that, the petitioner and another accused are stated to have demanded illegal gratification. However, he was not present when the amount was given to accused No.3. The trap mahazar would indicate that the bait amount is not recovered from the petitioner. Since, there is no acceptance of illegal gratification, in my considered view, the criminal prosecution cannot be launched against the petitioner, under such circumstances.

#15. In this context, it is necessary to rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka11, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, it is a well settled principle of law that, “demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification is sine qua non for 11 (2013) 3 SCC 721 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:5777 WP No. 200687 of 2025 HC-KAR constitution of an offence under the PC Act. It is obligatory on the part of the prosecution to establish that there was an illegal offer of bribe and acceptance thereof.”

#16. Having considered the said principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if it is applied to the present case, in the given set of facts and circumstances, it can be inferred that the petitioner had not accepted the illegal gratification. However, the allegation against him is that he demanded the illegal gratification to do some official favour. The said demand has not been proved properly. Hence, the ingredients of Section 7(a) of the PC Act does not get attracted. Therefore, mere recovery of the bait amount, without proving the ‘demand’, which is sine qua non to constitute an offence under Section 7(a) of the PC Act, is held to be erroneous. Therefore, it is appropriate to interfere with the fact of filing charge sheet.

#17. In the light of observations made above, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case to grant the relief as prayed for. Hence the writ petition is required to be allowed. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:5777 WP No. 200687 of 2025 HC-KAR

#18. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned complaint dated 19.11.2024 given by respondent No.3 and the FIR in Crime No.08/2024 registered by the respondent No.2 – police for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the PC Act, insofar as it relates to the petitioner / accused No.2 is concerned, is ordered to be quashed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE Bss List No.: 19 Sl No.: 4