- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7873 CRL.P No. 201563 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201563 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MALKAPPA S/O AYYAPPA NARIBOLI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BILL COLLECTOR AT KELLUR GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. JEWARGI, R/O HALAGADLA VILLAGE, TQ. JEWARAGI, DIST. KALABURAGI-585103. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH LOKAYUKTA P.S (ACB PS) KALABURAGI, REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, LOKAYUKTA, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH-585107. 2. BASAVARAJ S/O TIPPANNA HAVALDAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O HALGDLA VILLAGE, TQ. JEWARAGI, DIST. KALABURAGI-585301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1) Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7873 CRL.P No. 201563 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO QUASH THE FILING OF CHARGE SHEET AND ORDER OF COGNIZANCE DATED 13.11.2024 IN SPL.C.CORR/10/2024 (CRIME NO.10/2022) FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7(A) OF PC ACT, REGISTERED BY THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE, KALABURAGI (ACB EARLIER) AGAINST THE PETITIONER, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KALABURAGI. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 15.12.2025 COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING; CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CAV ORDER The captioned petition is filed by the petitioner who was working as Bill Collector seeking quashing of charge- sheet and order of taking cognizance dated 13.11.2024 passed in Spl.C.Corr/10/2024, pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi, for the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7873 CRL.P No. 201563 of 2025 offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act registered by respondent-Police . 2. Gist of prosecution case is that the complainant who intended to put up construction had submitted an application before Gram Panchayat seeking construction permission. However, the petitioner kept insisting for production of one document after another and thereafter, demanded Rs.3,000/- as illegal gratification for issuance of permission. Complainant being unwilling to pay bribe amount purportedly faced persistent insistence from the petitioner. It is further alleged that on 06.08.2022 at about 1.50 p.m., the complainant contacted the petitioner over phone and petitioner again demanded Rs.3,000/-. The said conversation was recorded on phone and subsequently, a complaint was lodged before Anti- Corruption Bureau (ACB) alleging demand of bribe. Pursuant to which, a Crime was registered, however, before trap could be conducted on 11.08.2022, the Division Bench by order dated 11.08.2022 quashed the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7873 CRL.P No. 201563 of 2025 institution of ACB resulting in the proposed trap not being executed and thereafter, investigation was taken over and completed by the Inspector, Lokayutha. Charge-sheet was filed on 30.03.2024 for the aforesaid offence. Aggrieved by the charge-sheet and the order of taking cognizance, the petitioner approached this Court. 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Lokayukta, and on perusal of the charge-sheet records made available, this Court has bestowed its anxious consideration to the rival submissions. 4. It is not in dispute that the complainant had approached the Gram Panchayat, Kellur, seeking permission for putting up a construction. According to the complainant, though the issuance of such permission was within the domain of the Panchayat Development Officer, the present petitioner, who was then working as a Bill Collector in the very Panchayat, kept insisting upon - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7873 CRL.P No. 201563 of 2025 production of documents one after another and thereafter, demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.3,000/- to facilitate the issuance of the construction permission. The complainant was allegedly not inclined to pay such gratification, but owing to the persistent demand, he contacted the petitioner over phone on 06.08.2022 at about 1.50 p.m., during which call, the petitioner is stated to have demanded the aforesaid amount. The said conversation was recorded in the complainant’s mobile device. Subsequently, the complainant approached the then ACB on 11.08.2022, lodging a complaint alleging demand of bribe. Though a trap was sought to be conducted, the same could not be accomplished in view of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court quashing the very establishment of the ACB. Thereafter, the investigation stood transferred to the Karnataka Lokayukta, which, upon completing the investigation, has filed a charge-sheet on 30.03.2024 for the offence - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7873 CRL.P No. 201563 of 2025 punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (for short, ‘PC Act’) as amended. 5. The primary contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, since the trap was not executed and there was no recovery of tainted money, the very foundation of the prosecution stands vitiated. It is further contended that the charge-sheet material itself discloses that the construction permission had already been issued by the competent authority—the PDO on 03.08.2022, and the requisite fee of Rs.4,000/- was deposited on 05.08.2022. Therefore, there was no work pending with the petitioner on 06.08.2022, rendering the allegation of demand inherently false. It is further contended that the petitioner, being merely a Bill Collector, was not vested with any authority to issue construction permission, and therefore, the prosecution is malicious and initiated with an ulterior motive to harass him. Based on these submissions, learned counsel contends that the ingredients of Section 7(a) of the PC Act - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7873 CRL.P No. 201563 of 2025 are not made out and, therefore, the proceedings deserve to be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 6. Per contra, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Lokayukta submits that the allegations in the complaint are squarely directed against the petitioner, who is admittedly a public servant. He submits that the recorded telephonic conversation forms part of the charge-sheet, and prima facie discloses that the petitioner had demanded an amount of Rs.3,000/- stating that the concerned authority was insisting for the said amount. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devinder Kumar Bansal v. The State of Punjab in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3247/2025 disposed off on 03.03.2025, it is contended that even if a trap is not culminated, the offence under Section 7/7(a) stands attracted if there exists credible and cogent material demonstrating demand for illegal gratification. According to him, the call records - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7873 CRL.P No. 201563 of 2025 clearly reflect an attempt to obtain undue advantage, and in view of such material, no interference is warranted at this stage. 7. Having considered the submissions and the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the charge-sheet contains prima facie material indicating a demand for illegal gratification by the petitioner. The recorded call conversation dated 06.08.2022, which forms an intrinsic part of the charge- sheet, prima facie reveals bargaining and negotiation relating to an amount allegedly demanded by the petitioner, purportedly on the ground that the authorities were insisting on the said amount. These materials, taken at their face value, clearly disclose an attempt to obtain illegal gratification. Such conduct falls within the sweep of Section 7 and 7(a) of the PC Act, and therefore, cannot be brushed aside at the threshold. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7873 CRL.P No. 201563 of 2025 8. Whether the petitioner had any official role in the issuance of construction permission, whether the demand had any nexus with an act or omission related to his official duties, and whether the telephonic conversation truly reflects a genuine demand or is fabricated, are matters that squarely fall within the realm of evidence and trial. At this preliminary stage, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into disputed questions of fact, nor can it undertake appreciation of the probative value of electronic records. The defences urged by the petitioner, including the contention that the permission was already issued on 03.08.2022 and that he being a Bill Collector had no role whatsoever in the process, are defences available to be established during trial and cannot form the basis for quashing proceedings. 9. Equally, the contention that the trap was not conducted or that there was no acceptance of bribe money, cannot constitute a ground for quashing the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7873 CRL.P No. 201563 of 2025 proceedings. The absence of trap or recovery does not ipso facto nullify the prosecution, particularly when there exists independent material reflecting demand for illegal gratification, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment relied on by the learned standing counsel. 10. Viewed thus, this Court finds that the charge- sheet materials, particularly the recorded telephonic conversation, disclose prima facie incriminating circumstances sufficient to proceed against the petitioner. This is, therefore, not a fit case for exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to interdict the criminal proceedings at the inception. 11. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter or on the evidentiary value of the materials relied upon by the prosecution, this Court is satisfied that the petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly liable to be dismissed. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7873 CRL.P No. 201563 of 2025 12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following: ORDER The Criminal Petition stands dismissed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 46 CT:SI