Point of law: when the materials relied upon by a party are required to be proved., no infererwe can be drawn on the basis of those materials to conclude the complaint to be unacceptable. The Court should not act on annexures to the petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., whichcannot be termed as evidence without being tested and proved

ORDER :

The petitioner who is accused No.1 is seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in S.C.No.5004/2017 pending on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballary, sitting at Hospet, for offences punishable under Sections 7 r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The brief facts are that, on the complaint of CW1, a case came to be registered in Crime No.2/2015 by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station, Hospet, against the present petitioner and a civil police constable on 3/9/2015. The allegation is that on 2/9/2015 at about 8.45 pm, both the accused had stopped the lorry bearing registration No.KA-22/C-2154 driven by CW1 which was carrying sponge iron pellets on the ground that the lorry was overloaded, i.e. carrying freight beyond the permitted weight. The further allegation is that the present petitioner being the police inspector had abused the driver and had demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.15,000/-for releasing the truck. It is also alleged that thereafter, the accused had taken the lorry to a weighbridge and got it weighed and the lorry was taken to the R.T.O. office and it was left there and the accused-petitioner herein and another accused had harassed CW1, CW4 and CW6. Accordingly, a complaint came to be registered. Lokayukta Police held the investigation and filed a charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 7 r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. There is an allegation in the complaint that, accused No.2 had taken the mobile phone of CW1 and had spoken to CW8 and during the said conversation, accused No.2 was standing near the jeep and the present petitioner was sitting inside the jeep and the present petitioner had used accused No.2 to make a demand for illicit gratification for releasing the lorry.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire complaint is a malafide one in as much as admittedly CW1 was driving the lorry which was carrying freight more than the permitted weight and when the present petitioner and accused No.2 stopped the vehicle, CW1, CW4 and CW6 started quarrelling with them and in the said process, some delay took place in taking the lorry to the weighbridge for taking the weight of the freight carried in the lorry. He further submits that upon weighing of the lorry in the weighbridge, it was found overloaded and accordingly, a fine was imposed and CW1, CW4 and CW6 had paid the same, thereby admitting that they had committed an offence punishable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is the further submission that due to vengeance, they had filed a false complaint against the present petitioner and accused No.2 and on such complaint, if charge sheet is filed and petitioner is made to face the trial, it will amount to abuse of process of law and therefore, charge sheet should be quashed. The learned counsel has also contended that the trial Court has not applied its judicial mind in taking cognizance for the offences. It was also contended by him that the basic ingredients of the offence under Sections 7 r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has not been made out. He further submitted that admittedly, the petitioner has not made any demand for bribe and the transcript of the conversation does not at all indicate that the petitioner had participated in the mobile conversation. He therefore submits that the charge sheet amounts to harassment of the petitioner and therefore, it should be quashed.

4. In support his submission he places reliance on the following decisions:-

i) AIR 2019 SC 210 (Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi))

ii) AIR 2017 SC 4434 (Varala Bharath Kumar and Another Vs. Sate of Telangana and another)

iii) 2019 AIAR (Criminal) 19 (Dashrath Singh Chauhan Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

5. The learned standing counsel Sri. Santosh B. Malagoudar, per contra, submitted that the complaint itself shows that the petitioner and accused No.2 in the guis