The main legal point established in the judgment is that sufficient evidence, including witness statements and phone records, can support the framing of charges for demand and acceptance of bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

K. Natarajan, J. - This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in Spl. C.C. No.1947/2022 pending on the file of the 23rd Additional City Civil And Sessions Judge and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act').

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Counsel for respondent No.1.

3. The case of prosecution is that on the complaint of 2nd respondent, the then ACB police registered FIR in Crime No.14/2021 on 14.06.2021 against the petitioner-accused. It was alleged by respondent No.2 that he was doing the real estate business and a case was registered against him in Kodigehalli police for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC on 01.04.2021. After knowing the same, the petitioner-accused working in the DCP office contacted the complainant stating that he will influence the Kodigehalli police for filing B final report against the complainant and hence, he demanded Rs.10.00 lakhs as bribe. Accordingly, the complainant contacted his friend Dayananda Kumar on 06.04.2022 and his friend paid Rs.5.00 lakhs to the petitioner-accused and undertook to pay the remaining Rs.5.00 lakhs. Subsequently, the complainant was released on bail. On 05.06.2021, the petitioner-accused telephoned to the complainant asking him to come near the DCP office and when the complainant met the petitioner-accused, the complainant was informed that there was one more complaint filed in Yalahanka Upanagar police and there was fabrication of documents in respect of land/site Nos.8, 9 and 10 of Sy. No.16/1. It was also informed that the owner of the aforesaid sites was not the real owner and therefore, he demanded removing Rs.5.00 lakhs in respect of filing B-final report in respect of the case in Kodigehali police and also Rs.50.00 lakhs for closing the matter in respect of Yalahanka Upanagar police. The petitioner-accused threatened the complainant that if the said amount is not paid, the complainant will be named in the rowdy sheet and file number of cases against him. And also, the petitioner-accused managed to register an FIR against the complainant in crime NO.96/2021 on 08.06.2021. Therefore, the complaint came to be filed against the petitioner-accused. After registering the case, the police arrested the petitioner-accused and he was released on bail. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed, which is under challenge.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no demand and acceptance of bribe and except the oral statement of the complainant, there is no evidence on record. Even otherwise, there was delay of 64 days in filing the complaint and there is no explanation for the delay. It is further contended that the mobile phone video clippings produced by the complainant is inadmissible and it cannot be considered. Absolutely, there is no material against the petitioner-accused for framing charge sheet and hence, prayed for quashing the charge sheet.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1-Lokayukta objected the petition and contended that during the investigation, the police have recorded the statement of one Dayananda Kumar and Dr. Narendra kumar for making Rs.5.00 lakhs to the petitioner-accused in his office on 06.04.2021. Subsequent to that, the complainant has paid the remaining amount by pledging the gold. There is material to show that the petitioner-accused managed to file one more case against the complainant by demanding Rs.50.00 lakhs and Rs.5.00 lakhs in order to file B-final report in a case registered at Kodigehalli police. The video clippings available were sent to FSL, but the report is not received. There is sufficient material available for framing charge. Therefore, prayed for dismissing the