The central legal point established in the judgment is the insufficiency of material and lack of support for the case, emphasizing the need for minimum enquiry before taking cognizance and highlighting the unsustainability of the Special Court's direction to seek sanction under Sec. 19 of PC Act.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner herein filed this petitioner under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the order passed by the 23rd Additional City Civil Sessions Judge and special Judge (PC Act) Bengaluru in Crime No.9/2021 dtd. 8/11/2020 for having rejecting the 'B' Final Report of the Investigating Officer.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.2 filed a complaint before Additional Director General of Police, Bengaluru on 19/11/2020 based upon his information one Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thammaiah registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No.9/2021 on 5/2/2021 against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sec. 7(a), 13 (1)(a), 12 read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred as "PC Act" in short) alleging that this petitioner said to be working as Police Inspector in Indiranagar Police Station, Bengaluru has demanded Rs.10.00 lakhs as undue advantage from the accused No.2 for filing B Final report in Crime No.91/2020 registered against accused No.2 in the said police station. It is further alleged that the accused no.2 said to have paid Rs.2,95,000.00to this petitioner by a cheque which was used for making payment in favour of East Cultural Association Club, Indiranagar (in short "ECA") for obtaining a membership and Rs.7.05 lakhs paid by cash. After registering the case and investigating the matter the Investigation Officer has come to the conclusion stating that no such amount has been received by this petitioner and there is no material evidence against him, therefore, he has filed B Final Report before the Special Court. Subsequently, the Special Court issued notice to the respondent No.2 the informant/the defacto complainant and he has appeared through the counsel and filed no objection to accept the 'B' Final report. Special Court instead of accepting the B Final report rejected the same and directed the Investigation Officer for placing the order before the competant authority for seeking sanction under Sec. 19 of PC Act in order to take the cognizance and to issue process under Sec. 204 of Cr.P.C which is under challenge.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously contended that the Investigation Officer after thorough investigation has filed B Final report stating that there is no material evidence against the petitioner to file the charge sheet and he has collected various documents but no such document available to file the charge sheet and he has examined so many witnesses none of them were given statement against the accused for filing the charge sheet. Such being the case and when there is no material to frame the charge and no ground to proceed against the petitioner the order of the Trial Court is not sustainable and further contended the complainant also appeared before the court and stated no objection to accept the 'B' Final report and he has not filed any protest petition and led any sworn statement and also not produced any additional document in order to take the cognizance by the Special Judge. When such being the case rejecting the 'B' Final report is not correct. It is further contended that when the Special Court directed the Investigation Officer to seek sanction from the competent authority directing the Investigation Officer to produce the order of the Special Court which is nothing but issuing direction by the Trial Court to the competent authority compelling them to give the sanction which is not correct. The sanction authority shall independently verify the documents and accord the sanction only on the materials collected by the Investigation Officer during the investigation. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court is not sustainable under the law. Hence prayed for quashing the impugned order.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 appeared through the video conference and submitted when the In