CAV ORDER

In this petition, petitioner – accused seeks quashing of the impugned FIR in Crime No.41/2024 registered on 14.11.2024 by the 1^st respondent – Lokayuktha police, pursuant to a complaint dated 14.11.2024 filed by the 2^nd respondent – complainant against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the P.C.Act’) and for other reliefs.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and perused the material on record.

3. Though the notice of this petition has been served on the 2^nd respondent, he has chosen to remain absent and unrepresented and not contested the petition.

4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner is working as an Inspector in the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force (BMTF) as an employee of the BBMP. The 2^nd respondent filed a complaint dated 14.11.2024 with the 1^st respondent – Lokayuktha interalia stating that he was the husband of Smt.Sridevi, who was the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.56 of Kumbena Agrahara Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore and had entered into a JDA with M/s.S.S Developers, who had constructed a residential apartment complex. The complainant alleged that on 11.11.2024, he received a phone call from one Thimmaraju working in BMTF, who informed the complainant that a complaint had been filed against the said Smt.Sridevi regarding illegal encroachment and that the complainant had to meet the petitioner in this regard. It is further alleged that when the complainant met the petitioner, he demanded Rs.15 lakhs for closing the case / complaint against Smt.Sridevi and after negotiations, the said amount was reduced and fixed at Rs.12.5 lakhs by the petitioner typing the said amount on his mobile phone.

5. The 2^nd respondent-complainant claimed that he had recorded the said conversation in a spy camera and transferred it to a laptop and being unwilling to pay the said amount to the petitioner, 2^nd respondent filed a complaint before the 1^st respondent – Lokayuktha, who conducted a pre-trap proceedings and thereafter, accompanied the complainant to a designated place where a sum of Rs.2 lakhs was handed over by the complainant to one Nandish, who was apprehended and a trap panchanama was prepared, statements of persons were recorded and proceedings were initiated against the petitioner.

6. A perusal of the material on record comprising of the complaint, FIR, trap panchanama, pre-trap panchanama, statements of witnesses will indicate that except the allegation made in the complaint to the effect that the petitioner had allegedly demanded a sum of Rs.12.5 lakhs from the 2^nd respondent, there is absolutely no material to incriminate the petitioner for the alleged offences. It cannot be gainsaid that it has been repeatedly held and reiterated by the Apex Court and this Court that proof of both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is sine qua non for attracting the provisions contained in Section 7(a) of the P.C.Act.

7. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the amount was not recovered from the petitioner but only from one Nandish and the trap panchanama and the entrustment mahazar do not indicate the presence of the petitioner at the scene of occurrence and the incident is said to have occurred in the car of the said Nandish; these documents also do not speak about the handing over of any illegal gratification to the petitioner, much less, any demand or acceptance by the petitioner; so also the alleged voice recording on 11.11.2024 is of such poor quality that it cannot be deciphered that the voice was that of the petitioner as per the panchanama; at any rate, the said voice recording does not establish acceptance of illegal gratification by the petitioner; as stated supra, the alleged illegal gratification was never handed over to the petitioner who was not found at the scene of occurrence nor was he apprehended by the