Reserved on : 27.11.2025 Pronounced on :21.02.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5163 OF 2023 BETWEEN:

PRABHUGOWDA PATIL, S/O SIDDANAGOWDA PATIL AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.16 MARASANAHALLI TALUKA INDI, MARASANAHALLI VIBHUTHALLI INDI, VIJAYAPURA – 586 217.

... PETITIONER (BY SRI TEJAS N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE M.S.BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001.

2 . SRI SHASHIDHAR G., S/O GANGADHAR G., AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS NO.55, NO.1, 2^ND FLOOR THIMMAIAH CHAMBERS

1^ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 009.

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATESH S.ARBATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

SRI SURESH S., ADVOCATE FOR R2 )

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.45/2019 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 7A OF P.C. ACT REGISTERED BY THE THEN ACB AND NOW BEING TRANSFERRED TO LOKAYUKTA POLICE PURSUANT TO THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 27.11.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner/accused No.2 in Crime No.45 of 2019 is at the doors of this Court calling in question registration of a crime against him for offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. Heard Sri Tejas N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Venkatesh Arbatti, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Suresh. S, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The petitioner is the Sub-Inspector of Police and the 2^nd respondent is the complainant. Pursuant to a complaint made by one Rajendra against the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner investigated the said case and filed the final report in respect of offence punishable under Sections 341, 324, 506 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. After the said registration of crime, the complainant appears before the 1^st respondent/Lokayukta Police alleging that the petitioner had demanded ₹1,00,000/- for the purpose of filing a ‘B’ report in respect of the case registered against him in Crime No.173 of 2019 and that accused No.1, one Ananda is said to have called the complainant over phone and demanded ₹1,00,000/- for the aforesaid purpose of filing of ‘B’ report, which would be shared by himself and the petitioner. The complaint further alleges that accused No.2, the present petitioner, was brought before the complainant in his chambers, wherein the complainant was informed that after making payment of ₹1,00,000/-, the petitioner would somehow get the case closed. It is based upon these allegations, the crime is registered by the then Anti-Corruption Bureau, the ACB in Crime No.45 of 2019. Registration of crime leads to investigation. At the stage of investigation, the petitioner approaches this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that no trap is laid against the petitioner. He has neither demanded nor accepted any money. The complainant’s allegation itself is against accused No.1. The complaint is registered only to wreak vengeance against the petitioner for having registered the crime against the complainant. The learned counsel would seek to placed reliance upon plethora of judgments of the Apex Court and that of this Court to buttress his submission that there is neither demand nor acceptance in the case at hand.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant would vehemently refute the submission contending that the petitioner has deliberately registered a crime against the complainant when the com