1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings before the XXIII Additional City Civil and Special Judge for (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bengaluru in Crime No.36 of 2015 registered for offences punishable under S.7, S.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PC Act' for short).

2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
The petitioner is an officer of the Indian Police Service. A complaint comes to be registered by the respondent on 30-05-2015 against one Sri Chandru @ Chandrashekhar for offences punishable under S.7, S.13(1) (d) r/w S.13(2) of the PC Act. The allegation was that on 30-08-2014 the respondent / complainant and his friends had been to Orange Bar & Restaurant and there was an altercation between them and the management of the bar, in respect of the said incident a case comes to be registered against the complainant before the Vyalikaval Police Station. It is the allegation that during the investigation in the said crime, the Assistant Commissioner of Police and other police officers repeatedly called the complainant and demanded a bribe to close the case, in pursuance of which, it is the averment in the complaint that the complainant gave Rs. 5/- lakhs to the Assistant Commissioner of Police and the Assistant Commissioner of Police is said to have called the complainant and allegedly demanded Rs.1/- crore as bribe. The reason springs here that the demand of Rs.1/- crore was to be given to the petitioner.

3. It is further alleged that when the complainant did not pay the amount as demanded, he was threatened that they will invoke offences under the Arms Act and also serious offences under the Indian Penal Code against him. It is then one Mr. Putte Gowda, a Police Sub-Inspector and a distant relative of the complainant working under the petitioner was summoned and was pressurized for fulfilling the amount of bribe from the complainant, as demanded by the petitioner. It is the averment in the complaint that Mr. Putte Gowda refused to do so. Therefore, he was placed under suspension. Based upon the aforesaid incident, crime in Crime No.36 of 2015 had come to be registered. Upon investigation in the said crime, the Police wing of the Karnataka Lokayukta file 'B' report against the accused including the petitioner contending that there was no substance in the allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe.

4. On the police filing the 'B' report, notice was issued to the complainant. The complainant files his protest memo to the 'B' report and to the memo filed by the Lokayukta to close the case against the petitioner. The concerned Court rejects the 'B' report and takes cognizance of the offence punishable under S.7, S.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act against the petitioner. It is against the order taking cognizance dated 13-12-2022 in Crime No.36 of 2015 the petitioner is before this Court in the present petition.

5. Heard Sri Sandesh J.Chouta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Sanchan Jai Nandan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

6. The learned senior counsel would submit that rejection of 'B' report by the learned Sessions Judge and taking of cognizance based upon a complaint so registered by the complainant are all an abuse of the process of law. The complaint so narrated did not even have any ingredients of demand and acceptance. There is no evidence placed even prima facie to demonstrate that the petitioner had demanded and accepted any bribe. An imaginary complaint springs as the petitioner had been strict in curbing of rowdy activities in the City and the complainant was a rowdy sheeter. It is his submission that the complaint of the complainant that the petitioner had demanded bribe is without there being any substance. He would seek to place plethora of judgments of the Apex Court to buttress his submission, which would all be considered in the course of the order.

7. On the other hand, the l