The absence of demand for illegal gratification renders allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act unsubstantiated, emphasizing that civil disputes cannot be criminalized.

ORDER :

MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioners, learned Special Prosecutor for the State/Lokayukta Police/respondent No.1, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant and perused the material on record.

2. Writ Petition Nos.11255/2025 and 11549/2025 are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’), whereas Criminal Petition No.6711/2025 is preferred under of the .

3. Writ Petition No.11255/2025 is filed by accused No.1; Writ Petition No.11549/2025 is filed by accused Nos.2 and 5; and Criminal Petition No.6711/2025 is filed by accused Nos.3 and 4. Since all these petitions arise out of the same FIR seeking identical reliefs, they are being disposed of together by this common order.

4. The petitioners are seeking to quash the FIR registered by the Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru, in Crime No.17/2025 and all consequential proceedings pending before the Court of the XXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bengaluru.

5. FIR is registered for the offences punishable under section 7(a) & 7(A) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (Amendment Act-2018) (in short ‘PC Act’) on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Sri. Channegowda K.K., S/o Kallavarayya, on 01.04.2025. The FIR names seven accused persons and four other unknown individuals.

6. Brief Facts of the Case:

The complaint is lodged alleging that the complainant and his wife had purchased a residential property in Bengaluru in August 2022, which had been mortgaged to Canara Bank. Due to financial difficulties, they executed a Lease-cum-Possession Agreement in favour of one Ravikumar in 2022. Later, needing further funds, the complainant borrowed money from accused No.6, Somasekhar, and his wife. Out of the Rs.55 lakhs agreed, Rs.35 lakhs were transferred to the complainant, and Rs.17 lakhs were returned in cash. The complainant states that he subsequently repaid Rs.30 lakhs by online transfer, leaving Rs.8 lakhs due. He alleges that Somasekhar, with an intention to grab the property, filed a false complaint in January 2024, leading to registration of FIR No.55/2024 under Sections 406 , 420, 506 IPC against the complainant and his wife. His wife was arrested and suspended from work, and the complainant obtained anticipatory bail and an interim stay from this Court. On 15.01.2025, the Lease-cum-Possession Agreement was cancelled after refunding Rs.65 lakhs to Ravikumar. On 18.03.2025, while the complainant visited the property, accused police personnel (including accused No.5) along with unidentified persons allegedly detained him, trespassed into the property, switched off CCTV, and forcibly took possession. His attempt to lodge a complaint was allegedly refused. The Station House Officer, accused No.1, allegedly pressured the complainant to settle the matter with accused No.6, threatening criminal action including opening a rowdy-sheet or invoking Karnataka Control Of Organised Crime Act, 2000, (for short ‘KCOC Act’). It is further alleged that accused No.2 contacted the complainant’s relatives insisting that the property be sold to persons indicated by them. The complainant was repeatedly summoned to different locations where accused No.1 and staff allegedly demanded execution of documents to transfer the property to their nominees. On 28.03.2025, the complainant was allegedly coerced at the police station into executing an agreement of sale in favour of accused Nos.3 and 4 for Rs.2.05 crores, though the market value was around Rs.3.50 crores. A sum