- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4281 CRL.P No. 200460 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200460 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN SRIKANTH S/O DEVINDRAPPA CHIMKODE AGED 43 YEARS, OCC. COMMISSIONER BIDAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY R/O H.NO.17-4-87 AGRICULTURAL COLONY, BIDAR – 585 401 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.C.V.NAGESH, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI.SHIVANAND V. PATTANSHETTI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH BIDAR LOKAYUKTA POLICE DIST. BIDAR – 585 401 REP. BY SPECIAL PP LOKAYUKTA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH – 585 107 Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4281 CRL.P No. 200460 of 2025 2. SATISH S/O KASHINATH NAUBADE AGED 44 YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS AGRICULTURE AND REAL ESTATE R/O KEB COLONY, SIDDHARUDH MATH (GUMPA) BIDAR TALUK AND DIST. – 585 401 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.GURURAJ V.HASIKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD) UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO QUESH THE REGISTRATION OF COMPLAINT AND FIR BY THE BIDAR LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION CRIME NO.08/2024 PEDNING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7AOF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT (AMENDED 2018) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 26.03.2025 AT KALABURAGI BENCH AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4281 CRL.P No. 200460 of 2025 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner who is aggrieved by the registration of complaint and F.I.R by the respondent-Lokayukta Police in Crime No.8/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Amended 2018) (for short P.C. Act). Factual matrix of the case: 2. The petitioner is the Commissioner of Bidar Urban Development Authority (for Brevity – BUDA). His parent department was P.W.D, where he was working as Assistant Executive Engineer. Accused No.2 is serving as Plant Officer in the said BUDA. The accused No.3 is stated to be working as a middleman between accused No.2 and the complainant. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant entered into a joint development agreement and formed a layout of which 40 percent of sites were released by BUDA in the year 2022. Remaining 60 percent sites were required to be released by BUDA for sale. When the complainant approached the petitioner for release of the said - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4281 CRL.P No. 200460 of 2025 sites, it is stated that he was demanded to pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as a illegal gratification. On 03.10.2024, he approached accused No.2 in his office and it is stated that both accused Nos.1 and 2 had demanded a sum of Rs.10-15 lakhs as a first installment. The said conversation was recorded in his mobile phone. On 22.11.2024, at the instance of the petitioner and accused No.2, the complainant said to have paid the illegal gratification of Rs.10,00,000/- to the accused No.3 and accordingly, the trap was laid, thereafter, a complaint came to be registered against the petitioner and others. 4. Heard Sri. C.V. Nagesh, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the advocate on record submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He was not at all present at the time of alleged transaction which was stated to have taken place. Therefore, the ingredients under Section 7(a) of P.C. Act cannot be said to be attracted against the petitioner. 5. It is further submitted that demand of illegal gratification is sine-qua-non to attract the ingredients of Section 7(a) of P.C. Act. Admittedly, in the complaint it is stated that as on the date of alleged transaction, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4281 CRL.P No. 200460 of 2025 complainant approached the accused No.2 and he is stated to have paid the illegal gratification to accused No.3. Therefore, the presence of petitioner and demand made by him is absent. Such being the fact, asking the petitioner to face the trial is absolutely would be an abuse of process of law. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioner has to be quashed. 6. Per Contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 Sri. Gururaj V. Hasilkar, vehemently, opposed the said submissions and he further submitted that, initially, the complainant had approached the petitioner and asked him to release the remaining sites for sale. At that time, he was asked to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- by the petitioner and accused, the same has been recorded in his mobile phone, it was produced to the respondent-police and lodged a complaint in that regard. The said conversation had been reduced into writing. Therefore, the same has been considered as one of the material witnesses to substantiate the demand of illegal gratification. Such being the fact, at this juncture, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings. 7. Similarly, Sri. Gowrish Kashmpur, learned Special Prosecutor for Lokayuktha vehemently opposed the submission - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4281 CRL.P No. 200460 of 2025 of the learned Senior Counsel and he further submitted that, this is the premature stage to deal with the issue. The accused Nos.1 and 2 jointly made demand for illegal gratification a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- for the purpose of releasing of sites for sale. 8. It is further submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in number of judgments held that F.I.R cannot be quashed at the initial stage as the detailed investigation has required to be carried out. In other words, interference with the investigation by the Constitutional Courts is confined. The interference by the Constitutional Courts in the matter of quashing F.I.R can be done only when it is found that the allegations made in the complaint are not sufficient to proceed with the trial or framing of charge. 9. It is further submitted that in the present case, the petitioner and others are involving in demanding the illegal gratification, the amount has been seized from the agent who is arrayed as accused No.3. Therefore, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings at the initial stage. 10. In support of his contention, he relied on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4281 CRL.P No. 200460 of 2025 Vs. L.C. Nagaraj, Diary No.37568/2023 decided on 01.10.2024. In another case, in the case of Sanju Rajan Nayar Vs. Jayraj and Another, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 582., 11. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties, before adverting to the facts of the case, it is necessary to mention the propositions of law relating to Prevention of Corruption Act and the manner in which inherent jurisdiction has to be exercised by the Constitutional Courts. 12. It is well settled principle of law that to attract the ingredients of Section 7(a) of P.C. Act, demand and acceptance is sine-qua-non which is required to be established at the initial stage. According to the averments of the complaint, the petitioner though stated to have demanded illegal gratification, he was not present as on the date of alleged transaction held between the complainant and accused No.3. In fact, the complicity has not been established by the prosecution between accused Nos.2 and 3. 13. It is also to be noted here that, the accused No.2, in fact, had intimated the higher authority regarding offering - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4281 CRL.P No. 200460 of 2025 the bribe to discharge his official duty by the complainant. Mere recovery of the amount alleged to have been given on demand by the petitioner to accused No.3 is not sufficient to hold that the prosecution has made out a case both demand and acceptance to attract the ingredients of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the P.C Act. Therefore, it is not appropriate to proceed against the petitioner herein. In fact, the judgments relied on by the respondents, in my considered opinion, would not be benefited in any manner. Therefore, it is appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 14. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. The proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.08/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act (Amended 2018), is quashed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NM, List No.: 19 Sl No.: 3