O R D E R

Leave granted.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-State of Karnataka against the order by which the High Court of Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as the” High Court”) has quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondent no.1 who was accused in FIR No. 48 of 2021, dated 28.10.2021, registered at Bengaluru City P.S. under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the allegation was about demand of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) as bribe from the complainant/respondent no.2 for Signature Not Verified Digitaglly siignved biyng a favourable report in his favour with regard to the RAJNI MUKHI Date: 2025.04.17 Reason:

structure which he had constructed allegedly on a drain. It was submitted that the conversation between the complainant and the respondent no.1 which was taped discloses that there was a demand of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) for which a trap was also laid but somehow it could not reach its logical conclusion on the date fixed i.e. 28.10.2021. It was submitted that the High Court without considering any aspect which was germane to be considered has allowed the quashing petition in favour of the respondent no.1.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that the issues which were to be considered on merit may not have been considered fully by the High Court but this would not mean that the order to quash the criminal case against the appellant is unsustainable. It was submitted that on merits the case is sound for quashing but he fairly admits that the High Court was required to go into the full merits of the matter which unfortunately has not been done. Thus, it was submitted that if the Court finds that the order is not well considered, it may remand the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration on each and every aspect on merits after hearing all the concerned parties.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant submits that there is enough evidence on record to show that there was a demand made by the respondent no.1. It was submitted that law requires that as per the Statute, even a demand if proved is enough to maintain prosecution and even convict the accused and in the present case the demand has been proved by enough documentary/oral evidence by way of conversation recorded between the complainant and the respondent no.1. Learned counsel also supported the stand of the State that the impugned order cannot be sustained and should be set aside.

6. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we find that the order impugned does suffer from lack of proper consideration. All issues which go against the respondent no.1 have not been dealt with much less, considered while passing the impugned order.

7. In such a case, when there are materials in support of the prosecution case, before quashing the very case itself, the Court is obliged to consider all aspects including materials which indicate complicity of the accused with regard to the commission of the offence alleged. In the present case the order being completely silent on all these aspects, in our considered view, the same cannot be sustained.

8. Accordingly, the order impugned stands set aside. The matter is remanded to High Court to be considered afresh in accordance with law after hearing all sides concerned and giving a finding on all issues which may be raised before the Court.

9. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.

10. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Registrar General of the High Court to be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for fixing a date and assigning a Court before which the W.P. No. 15644 of 2022 (GM-RES) upon revival would be listed for hearing.

11. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

12. Pending application(s) shall also stand disposed of.

………………………………………………………J.

[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]

…………………………………