- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1917 WP No. 104133 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 104133 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR C S/O. LATE C.V, CHIDANANDAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR INSPECTOR OF MOTOR VEHICLES, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, BALLARY-583101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATISH K., SRI.SURESH S.BHAT, SRI.SHASHANK BHAT AND SRI. ADITYA R.CHAKRAGIRI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BALLARY DISTRICT, BALLARY-583101. 2. SRI. MOHAMMED FURKHAN DALWALA S/O. D. SADIQ, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, MANAGER, VCC COMPANY, RESIDING AT NO.21/7, DALWALA STREET, KOUL BAZAAR, BALLARY-583101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH B.MALAGOUDAR, SPP FOR R1; SRI. G.K.HIREGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENT NO.1; ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMPLAINT DATED. 09/12/2021 GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A) AND THE IMPUGNED FIRST INFORMATION REPORT REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.13 11:17:58 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1917 WP No. 104133 of 2023 IN CRIME NO. 9/2021 DATED 09/12/2021 (ANNEXURE-B) AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner demanded an illegal gratification of ₹1,400/- on 27.10.2021 for facilitating the smooth movement of a vehicle belonging to VCC Company. Upon receipt of the said complaint, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ballari, registered a case against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“P.C. Act”). Subsequently, an entrustment mahazar was prepared in order to lay a trap. However, as the trap was unsuccessful, a mahazar was drawn, returning the bait money. Thereafter, the police officials attached to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ballari, conducted another mahazar to document the location where the petitioner had allegedly demanded illegal gratification. 2. To constitute an offence punishable under Sections 7(a) and 7A of the P.C. Act, the following essential ingredients must be satisfied: i. The work of the complainant must be pending before the accused; - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1917 WP No. 104133 of 2023 ii. There must be a demand by the accused from the complainant for illegal gratification to show official favor; iii. There must be an acceptance of the gratification amount in pursuance of such demand. 3. In the present case, there is no material evidence submitted along with the FIR to establish that the petitioner demanded an illegal gratification for performing any official act in favor of any individual or for facilitating the smooth movement of the vehicle belonging to VCC Company. Furthermore, the investigation report reveals that the amount allegedly found in possession of the petitioner was subsequently returned to him after being duly accounted for and reflected in the cash register maintained at the check post office. 4. With respect to an offence punishable under Section 13(1)(b) of the P.C. Act, the second proviso to Section 17 of the Act explicitly states that no investigation shall be conducted without prior authorization from a police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police. 5. In the present case, although the Superintendent of Police had authorized the Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate the offences punishable under the provisions of the P.C. Act, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, instead of conducting the investigation himself, lodged an FIR with the Police Inspector concerned for investigating the offence under Section 13(1)(b) of the P.C. Act. This delegation of investigative authority to the Police Inspector is in direct contravention of the second proviso - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1917 WP No. 104133 of 2023 to Section 17 of the P.C. Act. Consequently, the registration of the FIR and the subsequent investigation conducted by the Police Inspector are legally unsustainable and stand vitiated. ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned First Information Report in Crime No.09/2021 dated 09.12.2021 insofar as it relates to the petitioner/accused No.1 herein is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC Ct:vh List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2