In CRP 1099 of 2023- KAR HC- Karnataka High Court quashes FIR against Police Inspector under Prevention of Corruption Act due to inordinate delay in lodging the complaint
Justice K. Natarajan [18-05-2023]

Read Order: Yashwanth B.S. v State of Karnataka

Simran Singh

New Delhi, May 24, 2023: The Karnataka High Court, while exercising its criminal jurisdiction, set aside the FIR and investigation registered under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the then Anti-Corruption Bureau (Bengaluru City Division), now Lokayuktha, for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988[1]  (‘Act of 1988’).

“There was neither demand nor acceptance in the present case thus, it was deemed appropriate to obliterate the crime registered against the petitioner…..Apart from that, there was inordinate delay in lodging the complaint as per proviso to Section 8 of the P.C. Act. Therefore, the FIR and conducting the investigation against this petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law and hence the petition is deserves to be allowed.”

In the matter at hand, the petitioner-accused was a police inspector working in the Chikkajala Police Station. The complaint had approached him for protection in regard to putting up board on a disputed land. Complainant had purchased a land at Shettigere Village, Bengaluru for a sum of INR 2.80 Crores from Syed Babajan whose sale agreement was registered on 18-06-2018. It was alleged that Syed Babajan had previously entered into a sale agreement dated 02-08-2018 with Mukesh Mittal as well resultant to which a civil case was pending between them. Pursuant to the same, complainant wanted to put up a board on the land in regards to which had approached police  station where the petitioner-accused had demanded INR 10,00,000 as a bribe for the same. The complainant not wanting to pay the bribe, met the petitioner-accused through Nanjappa wherein he paid him in two instalments and INR 6,00,00 was still remaining to be paid. The complainant allegedly set up a trap and asked the petitioner-accused to receive the remaining amount from a place where the police apprehended him and seized the cash under panchnama.

The Bench stated that it was an admitted fact that there was no direct telephonic conversation between the petitioner-accused and the complainant vis-a-vis bribery in turn of the protection. There was no demand and acceptance of a bribe by the petitioner-accused from the complainant which was a sine qua non for registering the case under the Act of 1988.

The Court stated that as per proviso to the Section 8 of Act of 1988, upon the demand of a bribery, it shall be brought to the notice of the Police or Authority within 7 days. In the present case, the alleged demand was in December 2019 and August 2020, but the complaint was filed only on 07-01-2021 which is beyond the statutory period of 7 days.

The Bench while referring to the Supreme Court decision in State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal stated that the even if the complaint was taken on its face value, prima facie would not make out a case against the petitioner since an inherent improbability shrouded the complaint. There was neither demand nor acceptance in the present case thus, it was deemed appropriate to obliterate the crime registered against the petitioner accused for offences punishable under Section 7(a) of the Act of 1988. The Court accordingly allowed the petition and the FIR and investigation registered with Lokayuktha was hereby quashed.

I don’t think the Act is loading