- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1584 CRL.P No. 103046 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103046 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. RAMAREDDY S/O. SHARNAPPAGOUDA PATIL AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYAT, BELAGAVI, R/O. YADAGIRI, NOW AT. MALAMARUTI EXTENSION, BELAGAVI-590001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINAND A.PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI, NOW REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR LOKAYUKTA, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT. DHARWAD-580011. 2. SRI. SHAHANAWAZKHAN S/O. ABDULREHAMAN PATHAN, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.3983, KAKATIVES GALLI, OPPOSITE MODERN COMPLEX, BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH B.MALAGOUDAR, SPP FOR R1; SRI. S.K.BEPARI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO, QUASH CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO REGISTRATION OF FIR AND COMPLAINT IN BELAGAVI LOKAYUKTA P.S. CRIME NO.8/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 7(a) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE (PCA), BELAGAVI, ORDER SHEET, FIR AND COMPLAINT MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A, B AND C RESPECTIVELY IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IS CONCERNED. B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.30 11:52:40 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1584 CRL.P No. 103046 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The respondent No.2 approached the office of the Taluk Panchayat, Belagavi, where the petitioner – accused No.1 is working as the Executive Officer, to request forwarding of a file related to the complainant’s application for the grant of approval for an industrial layout. The respondent No.2 recorded a conversation with petitioner – accused No.1, during which the petitioner is alleged to have directed the complainant to meet accused No.2. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 approached accused No.2 and recorded another conversation, wherein accused No.2 is alleged to have demanded a gratification amount of Rs.50,000/-, which, upon negotiation, was reduced to Rs.40,000/-. The respondent No.2 expressed willingness to pay the gratification amount. 2. The Lokayukta police, after conducting a trap, registered the FIR, and accused No.2 asked the complainant to place the amount of Rs.40,000/- on the table . The accused No.2, after collecting the amount placed on the table, was proceeding towards the chambers of accused No.1. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 – State, and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1584 CRL.P No. 103046 of 2024 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no material evidence to substantiate that accused No.1 demanded gratification. In the absence of any direct evidence of demand or acceptance by accused No.1, the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, are not satisfied. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of process of law. 5. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent – Lokayukta contended that the recorded conversation between accused No.1 and the complainant establishes a nexus, showing that the demand and acceptance of gratification by accused No.2 were at the instance of accused No.1. The counsel argued that the veracity of the allegations against accused No.1 requires investigation, and at this stage, the registration of the FIR does not warrant interference. 6. Upon considering the arguments advanced by both sides, the following is noted: The complainant initially approached accused No.1, requesting him to forward the file to a higher officer. Accused No.1 allegedly directed the complainant to approach the case worker, who is accused No.2. Thereafter, accused No.2 demanded a gratification amount of Rs.50,000/-, which was reduced to Rs.40,000/- after negotiation. However, apart from the recorded conversation indicating that accused No.1 instructed the complainant to meet accused No.2, there is no - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1584 CRL.P No. 103046 of 2024 evidence to establish that accused No.1 demanded or accepted the gratification amount. 7. In Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1724), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that demand and acceptance of gratification is a sine qua non and must be directly attributed to the accused to constitute an offence under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 8. In the absence of any allegations or material evidence substantiating that accused No.1 either demanded or accepted the gratification amount, the continuation of the investigation against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of process of law. ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in Crime No.8/2024 registered by the respondent No.1 – Lokayukta pending on the file of the learned IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PCA), Belagavi, insofar as it relates to the petitioner – accused No.1 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM Ct:vh List No.: 3 Sl No.: 4