Point of Law: Illegal gratification – Dismissal of petition to Quash FIR - Petitioner, who is a sub-Registrar, is obtaining undue advantage from the public for performing his duty of registering documents and other allied duties directly and through others. Truth can only be unearthed by diligent investigation

ORDER :

The petitioner herein, who is an accused in ACB Ballari Crime No.10/2018, is seeking quashing of the registration of FIR by the said establishment for offences punishable under section 7(a) and 7A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“the Act” for short) by filing this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The brief facts are that one K. Pampapathi lodged a complaint before the ACB, Ballari on 15.11.2018 alleging that the petitioner, who is the Sub-Registrar of Hospet was indulging in corrupt activities and he was obtaining illegal gratification directly and through various middlemen including the staff working in his office and deed writers, for registering documents, issuing encumbrance certificates and for performing other official duties. After registering the said case and obtaining search warrant from the jurisdictional Special Judge, a unit of the ACB Ballari conducted search operation in the office of the petitioner and during the same, it is stated that a sum of Rs.2,95,048/-was recovered from various persons including the staff and deed writers etc., who were present in the premises of the office of the Sub-Registrar at Hospet.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant has nothing whatsoever to do with the office of the petitioner and he had not gone there to secure any documents from the said office or to register any document there and he was a busybody and a complaint at his instance should not have been entertained by the ACB at all. He submitted that during the raid and search, no amount whatsoever was recovered from the petitioner and in fact on his personal search, he was found only with a cash of Rs.50/-, which shows that he was an honest person. He further submitted that insofar as recovery of Rs.2,95,048/-from various persons who are either the employees of the establishment or deed writers is concerned, the said employees and the deed writers had given proper explanation for they being in possession of the money. He also contended that the ACB Police have misused their power and in such misuse of power, they had registered a case and conducted raid and if case is proceeded with further against the petitioner herein, it will destroy morale of an honest official working for the government and that will amount to abuse of the process of law and therefore, this is a fit case for quashing the FIR.

4. In this behalf, he placed reliance on several decisions of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and in particular, he has placed considerable stress on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amish Devgan v. Union of India and others reported in 2021 (1) SCC 1 at para No.121. He therefore submitted that this Court should exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., in favour of the petitioner for quashing the entire proceedings.

5. Learned counsel Sri.Santosh Malagoudar appearing for the ACB, who is respondent herein, per contra, submitted that officials of the establishment of the ACB, Ballari unit, on the complainant lodging a complaint which disclosed commission of serious offences under the Act, registered a case and thereafter they obtained search warrant from the competent Court and conducted raid and search operation in the premises of office of the petitioner in the presence of panchas. He submitted that during the same, a cash of Rs.2,95,048/-was recovered from various officials working in the said Office and deed writers operating therein and since they could not offer satisfactory explanation for the same, a panchanama was prepared and further investigation has been taken up. He further submitted that there is reasonable ground to believe that petitioner was indulging in corrupt practices directly and through his office staff and deed writers and by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 2013 SC 847 (State of Rajasthan vs. Dr.Rajkumar Agarwal and another) requested this Court to reject t