Back
Cop Cleared: Karnataka HC Rules No Bribe Demand, No Corruption Case
In a decisive blow to what it deemed a revenge-fueled probe, the has quashed an FIR against Sub-Inspector Prabhugowda Patil accused of demanding a ₹1 lakh bribe under . Justice M. Nagaprasanna , in a , order, emphasized that proof of both is the "soul" of such charges—absent here, with no trap laid or tainted money recovered.
The ruling reaffirms precedents, halting a six-year investigation transferred from the to Police, and signals caution against frivolous corruption complaints against public servants.
From Assault Probe to Bribe Backlash
The saga began in 2019 with Crime No. 173/2019, where Patil, as Investigating Officer, probed a complaint by one Rajendra against businessman Shashidhar G. (the complainant and Respondent No. 2). Patil filed a chargesheet on , under .
A week earlier, on December 4, Shashidhar lodged a detailed complaint with alleging Patil, via intermediary Ananda, demanded ₹1 lakh to file a closing the case. Shashidhar claimed multiple phone calls and meetings where the demand escalated, shared between Patil, Ananda, and another officer. No trap followed; Crime No. 45/2019 was registered under .
Patil challenged the FIR under , arguing malice amid nine cases against Shashidhar, including one by him. He proved absence from Bengaluru on key dates, like .
Petitioner's Defense: Vendetta, Not Corruption
Patil's counsel, , hammered home the lack of essentials: no trap, no demand proven against Patil (allegations targeted Ananda primarily), no acceptance, and no recovery. Citing rulings like , he argued mere allegation fails without "demand of illegal gratification" as . The timing—post-chargesheet—and Shashidhar's multiple cases screamed vengeance.
Prosecution's Push: Let Investigation Unfold
Respondent No. 1 (State via , represented by ) pointed to recorded demands and the complaint's Kannada details of calls and meetings. No trap due to ACB uncertainties, but "clear demand" warranted probe. Shashidhar's counsel, , countered Patil's false case registration (Shashidhar absent during alleged assault) and insisted investigation reveal truth after four stalled years.
Judicial Scalpel: Dissecting PC Act Precedents
Justice Nagaprasanna meticulously parsed Section 7 PC Act , pre- and post-2018 amendment. Pre-amendment gems like B. Jayaraj (2014) and N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) insist demand + acceptance proven beyond doubt; mere recovery insufficient. Post-amendment, the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta v. State (2023) and Soundarajan v. State (2023) uphold this: no demand/acceptance, no offence, even circumstantially.
The court noted: no pre-trap mahazar, no demand-acceptance, no petitioner-conversation recordings. Echoing State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), it fit Category 7—malicious proceedings for vengeance. A recent ruling in Beeralinga v. State (2024), upheld by dismissal, reinforced quashing.
Key Observations
"On a coalesce of the judgments... the soul of Section 7 of the Act is . The unmistakable inference... if there is demand but no acceptance, it would not make an offence under Section 7 of the Act. If there is acceptance but no demand, it would then also make no offence."
"Proof of demand of illegal gratification is to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe."( B. Jayaraj cited)
"It is admitted that there is no trap and there is not even a finding that there has been ... the complaint against the petitioner is filed undoubtedly to wreak vengeance."
FIR Annihilated: Clean Slate for the Sub-Inspector
The petition succeeded: " Criminal Petition is allowed. FIR registered... in Crime No.45 of 2019... stands quashed. "
This shields public servants from unproven corruption tags, demanding solid evidence before stigma. Future cases may see stricter FIR scrutiny under PC Act, curbing misuse amid official-public clashes, as media reports on the order highlight its reaffirmation of Neeraj Dutta .
