Rathnakala, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the Lokayuktha Police in registering the case against him under Sections 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) by arraying him as the first accused. Subsequently on completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet also in respect of the offence under Sections 7, 8, 10, 13(i)(e) and 13(2) of the Act. Since the charge sheet was filed during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner got amended his petition seeking the relief for quashing the charge sheet. However, subsequently Sri Krishna S. Dixit, learned Counsel for the petitioner made a submission that he restricts his prayer only to the extent of quashing of the FIR.

2. The allegation of the prosecution is, Petitioner works as an Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Central Office, Bangalore; the land belonging to the mother of the complainant/2nd respondent and a relative of the complainant in Sy. No. 102/2 measuring 23 guntas and 102/1 measuring 27 guntas, totally 1 acre 10 guntas was acquired for developing Arkavathi Layout. The land owners submitted application to de-notify their lands from acquisition. The second accused/N.R. Ramesh is an Advocate, who was acting as the Agent of the first accused; the complainant approached the second accused along with his friend Sunil Kumar/CW-2. The second accused demanded gratification of Rs. 20 lakhs to place the file of the complainant before the De-notification Committee. However, on the request of the complainant, came down for Rs. 16 lakhs and demanded advance amount of Rs. 5 lakhs. The complainant approached the petitioner/first accused in his office on 15.11.2012 at 8.30 p.m. along with accused No. 2. Petitioner consented for Rs. 20 lakhs as expressed by accused No. 2, thereby demanded illegal gratification for carrying out official work and abetted accused No. 2 to receive bribe money on his behalf. While accused No. 2 was receiving Rs. 5 lakhs advance amount of bribe money as agreed before, he was caught red-handed on the evening of 16.11.2012 in a Hotel.

3. Sri Krishna S. Dixit, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is a K.A.S. Officer of 1986 batch and has put in about 30 years of blemishless service. Because of the registration of the case, his promotional opportunity is freezed. The complainant is not the owner of the lands, which are sought to be de-notified by the owners. As per the complaint allegation, the complainant suspected that accused No. 2/N.R. Ramesh would demand money and therefore, had deputed his friend Sunil Kumar to Lokayuktha Office on 8.11.2012 and a Spy Camera was handed over by the Lokayuktha Police to Sunil Kumar for recording the conversation between him and accused No. 2; complainant met accused No. 2 on 12.11.2012 and 13.11.2012. During the interaction, accused No. 2 had agreed to receive Rs. 16 lakhs gratification on the very same night of 13.11.2012; the complainant met the petitioner in his office but the Spy Camera did not work since the battery had drained out. The conversation between accused No. 2 and the petitioner on 15.11.2012 pertains to betterment charges in respect of some other lands of the same extent. The amount mentioned in the conversation was with regard to the statutory betterment tax approximately worked out as per Sections 22 and 23 of the B.D.A. Act. There is absolutely no conversation between the complainant and the petitioner.

Sri Krishna S. Dixit continues, in the said conversation, there is no mention of survey numbers and village pertaining to the property of the mother and cousin of the complainant and also there is nothing about de-notification. Learned Counsel further adds that, though it is alleged in the complaint that complainant's friend Sunil Kumar had carried a spy camera given to him by the Lokayuktha Police while meeting second accused, said conversa