ORDER :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioner is before the Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No. 49 of 2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 7(a) and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘Act’ for short).

2. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

2.1. It is the case of the prosecution that one M/s DR Developers had sought a sanction plan from the hands of Bangalore Development Authority. In this connection, a no objection certificate ('NOC') was required to be obtained from the Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited ('BESCOM') and the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited ('KPTCL'). The allegation is that in order to secure the NOC, the 2nd respondent was authorized in terms of a letter dated 16-04-2025 by M/s. DR Developers. It is alleged that in connection with the same, on 23-04-2025, an application is made with the BESCOM and KPTCL to secure the said NOC. After the assessment by the jurisdictional BESCOM Division, the said file was processed and ultimately forwarded to the Managing Director, BESCOM, for his approval. The Managing Director, in turn, forwards the file to the Office of the Energy Minister for his final approval. The allegation then springs that the 2nd respondent, in order to enquire about the status of the application, visits the office of the Energy Minister, secures the mobile number of the petitioner from the staff.

2.2. It is the further allegation that on 29-09-2025, the 2nd respondent contacted the petitioner herein and sought information about the status of his application and at that juncture the petitioner is said to have instructed the 2nd respondent to meet him near his car. On the meeting of the petitioner, the petitioner is alleged to have placed the demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- to issue the NOC and since the 2nd respondent pleaded his inability to pay Rs. 1,00,000/-, the petitioner is said to have typed Rs. 50,000/- in his calculator and showed the same to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent alleges that he had recorded the aforesaid conversation in his voice recorder, goes before the Lokayuktha, gets a crime registered on 03-10-2025 for the offence under Section 7(a) of the Act, which leads to preparation of a pre-trap mahazar. The police then proceeded to record the trap mahazar on 04-10-2025 wherein it is alleged that accused No.2, Naveen is trapped while accepting bribe amount of Rs. 50,000/-. Accordingly, accused No.2 was arrested on the spot.

2.3. The averment in the petition is that the petitioner without any basis, is arrayed as accused No.1 and during the course of the investigation, the offence under Section 7A of the Act is invoked against the petitioner as well. Aggrieved by the said action, of registration of the crime, the petitioner is before the Court seeking quashment of the registration of the crime.

3. Heard Sri P Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri B B Patil, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.

4. The learned counsel Sri P. Prasanna Kumar appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the basic ingredients of demand and acceptance is not even found in the case at hand. It is all the statement of the complainant that the petitioner had placed a demand for Rs. 1,00,000/- and had agreed for Rs. 50,000/-, but the amount is paid to someone else. The conversation in the recorder is of someone else, but the act of a trap falls upon the petitioner. The learned counsel submits if this would be permitted, it would run foul of a plethora of judgments rendered by the Apex Court on the issue. He would submit that the sources inimical to the petitioner have engineered this inclusion of the petitioner as accused No.1, while not a speck of act is performed by the accused No. 1, the petitioner.

5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor Sri B B Patil appearing for the 1st respondent would vehemently refute this submission, taking this Court through the statement of ob