IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal case cannot be quashed by High Court by ignoring mass of evidence showing complicity of accused in alleged offence.

ORDER :

Leave granted.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2nd January, 2023 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl. Pet. No. 606/2022 titled Sri Jayaraj vs. State of Karnataka, whereby under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the High Court quashed the First Information Report¹ [‘FIR’ for short] bearing No. 63 of 2021 dated 8.12.2021 for the offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending before the 23rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the written submissions filed by the parties across the Bar.

3. Respondent No. 1-Jairaj stands exonerated in the departmental proceedings in relation to an inquiry initiated on the basis of the complaint with regard to the allegations of demand for bribe. As a consequence thereof, the FIR in Crime No. 63/2021 registered on the basis of the complaint made by the instant appellant, stands quashed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru vide its impugned judgment.

4. Briefly set out, the facts are, that the marriage of the instant appellant was solemnized on 21.7.2006. During the subsistence of such marriage, his wife filed a complaint with the SHO Police Station Krishna Rajapuram Police Station alleging the appellant to have sexually harassed his minor child while visiting the child in the school, which resulted into registration of FIR No. 555/2018 under the different provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Indian Penal Code, 1860. Respondent No. 2, who was entrusted with the investigation of the said FIR, demanded and accepted monetary consideration from the instant appellant. Since the demands of bribe continued, the instant appellant brought the factum of such bribe to the notice of Karnataka Human Rights Commission, Bangalore, by placing on record the evidence inter alia in the shape of a pendrive. As a result thereof, based on the preliminary inquiry FIR was registered with the Anti Corruption Branch, City Bangalore Police Station on 8.12.2021 being Crime Case No. 63 of 2021 under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Based on the preliminary investigation, the authorities also accorded sanction for prosecuting Respondent No. 1.

5. In quashing the FIR the High Court observed that “there is no direct evidence, where this petitioner has demanded any money or bribe from the complainant.” Also that “there is no material to proceed against this accused No. 1. That apart, it is worth to mention that there was complaint registered against respondent No. 2 in Crime No. 555/2018 for both offences under Sections POCSO as well as Section 354 of IPC on the complaint filed by the wife of respondent No. 2. During the investigation, the petitioner/accused No. 2 said to have summoned the complainant to the police station who is said to have been harassed by them and was demanded money. But later, only in order to overcome the complaint filed against respondent No. 2, by his wife this complaint was filed for taking revenge against the police as they had summoned the respondent No. 2 to the police for the purpose of investigation in Crime No. 555/2018.”

6. At this point in time, we observe that two persons were named as accused whereas the petition for quashing was preferred only by one of the accused, namely, Jairaj. The FIR was categorical that ASI Sivakumar (Accused No. 2) had received money and that Police Inspector Jairaj had assured that they would provide charge-sheet in lieu of Rs. 80,000/- and that the complainant would also have to pay Rs. 500 per week when he visits the police station, as a condition of bail.

7. In the aforesaid backdrop, in the considered view of this Court, the approach adopted by the Courts in quashing the FIR in the attending facts and circumstances, is legally unsustainable. It ventured into an inquiry, unwarranted at this stage, holding that there is no di