- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3377 CRL.P No. 102967 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102967 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. SANJAY S/O. RAMAPPA DUMMGOL AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. TALUKA HEALTH OFFICER, R/O. KUMARSWAMY LAYOUT, BELAGAVI, TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRUTHVIRAJ P.HITTALAMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA R/BY ITS POLICE INSPECTOR, BELAGAVI-590002, R/BY SPL.PP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. 2. VINAYAK S/O. RAVALAPPA KARADI AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE DOCTOR, R/O. H.NO.32, 1ST CROSS, NEHARU NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANIL KALE, SPP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. ( 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO, QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN LOKAYUKTA P.S. CR.NO. 07/2024 LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE (PCA), BELAGAVI,FILED U/SEC. 7(a) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION (AMENDED) ACT, 2018. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.21 17:16:27 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3377 CRL.P No. 102967 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner/accused No.1, who is under investigation for an offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, has approached this Court. 2. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner is working as a Taluka Health Officer and that accused No.2 is a Health Inspector. Accused Nos.1 and 2 inspected the complainant’s clinic and found certain discrepancies in its maintenance, which constituted a contravention under the provisions of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act. Following the inspection, accused No.1 issued a show cause notice to the complainant, directing him to rectify the discrepancies. Thereafter, accused No.2 allegedly demanded a gratification amount of ₹30,000/- for closing the complaint. Unwilling to pay the bribe, the complainant approached the Lokayukta Police. The Lokayukta Police provided the complainant with a tape recorder to record the conversation. Subsequently, the complainant recorded conversations with both accused No.1 and accused No.2 in their respective chambers. 3. Following this, an FIR was registered, and a trap was conducted. During the trap, accused No.2 was caught red-handed while accepting the gratification amount of ₹30,000/-. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no material evidence to substantiate the demand and acceptance of the gratification amount. Therefore, in the absence of essential elements constituting an offence under Section 7(a) of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3377 CRL.P No. 102967 of 2024 the Prevention of Corruption Act, the registration of the FIR would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 5. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent - Lokayukta submitted that the recorded conversation between the complainant and accused No.1 clearly establishes that accused No.1 had demanded gratification. He further argued that the veracity of the allegations requires investigation. Additionally, he submitted that accused No.2 had demanded the gratification amount on behalf of accused No.1. Therefore, the allegations require a thorough investigation at this stage, and the registration of the FIR does not warrant interference. 6. The arguments of the learned counsel for both parties have been duly considered. 7. The show cause notice was issued to the complainant regarding discrepancies in the clinic’s maintenance falls under contravention of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act. 8. The prosecution alleges that the accused demanded and accepted a gratification amount for closing the complaint. However, a perusal of the transcription of the conversation recorded between accused No.1 and the complainant indicates that there was no demand for a gratification amount. The transcription of the recorded conversation between the complainant and accused No.2 reveals that the complainant merely stated that the gratification amount of ₹30,000/- was on the higher side. Apart from the statement of accused No.2 claiming to have acted on the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3377 CRL.P No. 102967 of 2024 instructions of accused No.1, there is no corroborative material to establish that accused No.1 had demanded the gratification amount from the complainant, either directly or through accused No.2. 9. Therefore, in the absence of substantial evidence proving that accused No.1 demanded a gratification amount for closing the file, the registration of the FIR for an offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is illegal. Consequently, the continuation of the investigation would amount to an abuse of the process of law. ORDER i. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. ii. The impugned First Information Remote in crime No.7/2024 registered by The Lokayukta Police Station, Belagavi, insofar it relates to accused No.1 is hereby quashed. The respondent Lokayukta Police to proceed against accused No.2 in accordance with law. Pending I.A’s does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE TIN Ct:vh List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2