- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30006 CRL.P No. 9549 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9549 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MANJAPPA T S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, PSI NORTH TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, R/O 2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS, SHIVAKUMARBADAVANE, DAVANGERE - 577 001. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. ARCHANA MURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA DAVANGERE - 577 001, REPRESENTED BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, LOKAYUKTHA, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 01. 2. K.S NAGRAJ S/O S.K. SADASHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O SHIRAMGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, DAVANGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 003. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30006 CRL.P No. 9549 of 2025 (BY SRI. B.S. PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 03.05.2025 IN CRIME NO.5/2025 OF LOKAYUKTHA POLICE DAVANAGERE PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL COURT DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCES P.U/S 7(A) OF P.C ACT IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who is serving as a Police Sub- Inspector (PSI), has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the FIR registered in Crime No. 5/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, has strenuously contended that the present case warrants interference by this Court at the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30006 CRL.P No. 9549 of 2025 inception stage itself. Inviting attention to the complaint averments and the contents of the FIR, it is argued that the essential ingredients constituting the offence namely, demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are conspicuously absent. According to the petitioner, the entire complaint is vague, bereft of any specific role attributed to him, and does not disclose any prima facie material to establish a culpable act on his part. 2. It is further submitted that the complaint, on its face, indicates that the money in question was handed over to Accused No.2, and that the petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No.1, had no direct involvement in either making a demand or receiving the alleged illegal gratification. Therefore, it is argued that continuing the investigation against the petitioner in such circumstances would be nothing but a futile - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30006 CRL.P No. 9549 of 2025 exercise and would result in a gross abuse of the process of law. 3. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the submissions advanced and has carefully examined the contents of the complaint which has led to the registration of FIR in Crime No. 5/2025. While the contention that the FIR lacks specific details regarding demand and acceptance is noted, it must be underscored that the stage at which the investigation is ongoing is too premature for this Court to conclusively adjudicate upon the sufficiency or insufficiency of the material collected. The allegations levelled in the complaint pertain to corruption a serious economic offence that strikes at the very root of public trust and institutional integrity. In such cases, the role of the accused, their involvement, and the existence or absence of demand and acceptance - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30006 CRL.P No. 9549 of 2025 are all matters to be thoroughly investigated by the competent agency. 4. It is a well-settled legal position that in cases involving allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with great caution, circumspection, and only in the rarest of rare cases where manifest injustice or abuse of process is clearly demonstrable. Premature interference at the stage of investigation may derail a legitimate inquiry and hinder the uncovering of deeper institutional malpractices. The Honourable Supreme Court has time and again held that corruption cases demand strict scrutiny and effective investigation, as they are offences not merely against an individual but against the collective conscience of society. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30006 CRL.P No. 9549 of 2025 5. In the present case, whether the petitioner had demanded or accepted illegal gratification is a matter that is required to be probed through a fair and impartial investigation. The complaint sets the criminal law in motion, and at this preliminary stage, this Court finds no compelling reason to quash the FIR or stifle the investigation. Any indulgence at this stage would amount to pre-judging the matter, which is not permissible in law when serious offences under the PC Act are alleged. 6. In view of the above, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the veracity of the allegations made in the complaint, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the ongoing investigation. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach this Court at an appropriate - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30006 CRL.P No. 9549 of 2025 stage, particularly after the filing of the charge sheet, if so advised. 7. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 CT: BHK