2026 Supreme(SC) 621

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
The State by Lokayuktha Police – Appellant
Versus
K. Rangayya and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2917 of 2026 [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5245 of 2025]
Decided On : 26-05-2026

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Illegal gratification – Mere demand or solicitation by a public servant may amount to commission of offence under Section 7 of PC Act.
(2) It is not necessary that public servant himself has to obtain or accept or attempt to obtain undue advantage for himself only, but such undue advantage can be obtained for “another person” also.

Headnote:

(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 7(a) – Illegal gratification – Demand by Police Officials – Mere demand or solicitation by a public servant may amount to commission of offence under Section 7 of PC Act – It is not necessary that public servant himself has to obtain or accept or attempt to obtain undue advantage for himself only, but such undue advantage can be obtained or accepted or attempted to be obtained for “another person” also – Such an offending act can be done by “another public servant” also under personal influence of concerned public servant – A public servant may not be directly a recipient or executor of offensive act and may not be in limelight and remain in background – Allegations in complaint, taken at their face value, disclose at very minimum, attempt by Respondent public servant to obtain undue advantage from Complainant if not for himself but definitely for his subordinates – Complainant’s motive is a matter that can be tested at trial – Existence of prior disputes between parties does not, in and of itself, constitute ground for quashing FIR, particularly when allegations, taken at face value, disclose prima facie cognizable offence – Impugned Judgment and Order passed by High Court set aside and criminal proceedings revived and restored. (Paras 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 32, 33 and 36)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Section 528 of BNSS] – Quashing petition – At the stage of considering petition for quashing FIR, Court is not required to examine merits of allegations or to evaluate evidence that may ultimately be led at trial – Sole and limited inquiry at this threshold stage is whether allegations set out in FIR, taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety as true, prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence against accused – It is not permissible for Court to conduct what amounts to a mini-trial by sifting through evidence, assessing probabilities, or weighing credibility of witnesses, for these are functions exclusively reserved for Court of trial. (Para 16)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal, filed by the State through the Lokayuktha Police, Karnataka, challenges impugned final Judgment and Order dated 23.01.2024 passed by High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad in Writ Petition No. 104236 of 2023, whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the Respondent No. 1 – Sri K. Rangayya and quashed the FIR bearing Crime No. 04/2023 dated 03.06.2023, registered against the Respondent No. 1 under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Findings of Court:

Observations made are only with reference to the consideration as to whether any prima facie case is made out to constitute the offence as alleged in the FIR for the purpose of consideration in exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC and it cannot influence in any manner final or conclusive determination of guilt or innocence of Respondent No. 1 which has to be determined at the conclusion of trial based on evidence that may be adduced during trial.

Result : Appeal allowed.