- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48155 WP No. 27324 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 27324 OF 2017 (GM-KLA) BETWEEN: 1. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE M S BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 REP.BY D ASHOK, DY.S.P. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASAD B.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 2. OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION KHANDAYA BHAVAN 8TH FLOOR, K G ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009 3. SMT C ANJALI D/O CHIKKANNA Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48155 WP No. 27324 of 2017 OCC: SUB REGISTRAR BAGEPALLI TALUK PERMANENT R/O NO.287 5TH C CROSS ROAD BENGLAURU TAX LAYOUT 8TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI BENGALURU - 560 072 PRESENTLY WORKING AT SUB -REGISTRAR OFFICE BYNDOOR UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 214 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2 SMT. NIRMALA ARALI, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 6.8.2016 PASSED BY R-2 AT ANNEX-D. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 06.08.2016 passed by respondent No.2, declining to grant sanction to respondent No.3 for - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48155 WP No. 27324 of 2017 prosecution under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'P.C. Act'). 2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the respondent No.3 while working as Sub-registrar at Bagepalli, Chikkaballapur Taluk, at the instance complaint filed by one N.Shivappa s/o Narasimappa has been trapped and as such, the Lokayukta Police have registered Crime No.7/2014 under the provisions of Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act. 3. Based on the said complaint, the petitioner has sought for sanction from respondent No.2 to prosecute respondent No.3 which came to be declined by the respondent No.2 and therefore, the petitioner has presented this petition. 4. Heard Sri B.S.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48155 WP No. 27324 of 2017 Nos.1 and 2 and Smt.Nirmala Arali, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the respondent No.2 declined to grant sanction to prosecute respondent No.3 based on the reply made by respondent No.3 as per reference at No.7 in the impugned order dated 06.08.2016 (Annexure-D) and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. Learned counsel further contended that it is the duty of respondent No.2 to look into the material available on record as to whether the prima facie case has been made to prosecute respondent No.3 and therefore, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order at Annexure-D requires to be set aside as the reasons assigned by respondent No.2, are non-est and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 5. Per contra, Smt. Nirmala Arali, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submitted that respondent - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48155 WP No. 27324 of 2017 No.2 has taken note of the entire factual aspect on record, particularly, with regard to the enemity between respondent No.3 with one N.Shivappa-the Deed Writer(complainant) at Bagepalli town on the earlier occasion and in this regard, the trap has been made when respondent No.3 was receiving Rs.1,985/- in respect of the Stamp Duty payable for the registration of the Gift Deed No.1403/2014-15 dated 10.07.2014 and therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 that no interference is called for in this petition. 6. Sri Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned order at Annexure-D and submitted that respondent No.2 has considered the entire material available on record, particularly, with regard to the circumstances under which the respondent No.3 has been trapped at the instance of the N.Shivappa, Deed writer at Bagepalli town and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48155 WP No. 27324 of 2017 7. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after careful consideration of the material placed on record would indicate that on 10.07.2014 at the time of registration of the Gift Deed No.1403/2014-15, it is alleged that respondent No.3 was receiving amount of Rs.1985/- from the parties to the documents. However, the said trap has been made at the instance of one N.Shivappa who had earlier some issues with the respondent No.3 and at his instance, the trap has been made. In this regard, it is to be noted that Rs.1,985/- has been given to the respondent No.3, at the time of registration as the Stamp duty to be payable for registration of the gift deed is concerned. In that view of the matter, as the said complainant- N.Shivappa himself has made a request for withdrawal of the complaint and that apart, taking into consideration the circumstances in which, the trap has been made at the time of receiving of the Stamp Duty by respondent No.3 in respect of the Gift Deed and after considering the material - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48155 WP No. 27324 of 2017 on record, rightly declined to grant sanction for prosecuting respondent No.3. It could be noticed that, the amount in question received by the respondent No.3, and at any stretch of instance if the respondent is accepting the bribe, same would have a whole amount and not like Rs.1,985/-. Therefore, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the finding recorded by this Court in respect of the present case is confined only insofar as the facts and circumstances of the case, and therefore, the finding recorded by this Court cannot be accepted as the precedent on the findng is recorded on the basis of circumstances of the case. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50 CT-SG