Appointment to Higher Post on Compassionate Grounds Not a Matter of Right: J&K&L High Court
07 Mar 2026
Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Supreme Court Orders No-Fault Vaccine Compensation Policy
11 Mar 2026
Maintenance to Wife Should Not Encourage Idleness or Be Excessive: Gujarat HC Reduces Family Court Enhancement under CrPC Ss.125,127
11 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
KULDEEP MATHUR
Mahadev S/o Shri Channappa Honappanavar – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
1. By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is presently working as a Civil Head Constable at Vidyagiri Police Station, Dharwad (Karnataka). An FIR (Crime No. 121/2022) for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 344, 366-A, 370 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 came to lodged against nine named accused persons at P.S. V
The demand for an undue advantage by a public servant, even if not linked to improper performance of duty, constitutes an offense under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The absence of evidence for bribery and corruption led to the quashment of the FIR, emphasizing the necessity of substantiating allegations in corruption cases.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribes beyond reasonable doubt, which was not established in this case.
A private individual cannot be charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act for bribery or conspiracy if the co-accused has been discharged, as no evidence remains against them.
The court held that mere possession of cash does not constitute bribery without evidence of demand or acceptance, leading to the quashing of the FIR.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article