Back
Dismisses Lawyer's Plea to Quash FIR for Posing as Police and Demanding Bribe
In a significant ruling underscoring the limits of judicial intervention at the stage of investigation, the has refused to quash an FIR against a practicing lawyer accused of by impersonating a police officer. Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, sitting in single bench, dismissed the criminal petition filed under (now ), holding that the complaint disclosed the commission of a under (BNS).
The Allegations: A Phony Police Squad and a Five‑Lakh Bribe
The case arose from Crime No. 53/2026 registered at , against petitioner Gadilinga, an advocate, and others. According to the complaint, the accused intercepted the vehicle of one Sharabhaiyya, the second respondent, while falsely presenting themselves as members of a police department squad. They allegedly demanded a bribe of ₹5,00,000 to avoid lodging a police case. The complainant stated that he offered ₹2,00,000, but the accused refused the amount, insisting on at least ₹3,00,000 after a conversation with an unidentified person in the car. The FIR was registered under Sections 308(2) ( by putting a person in fear of accusation) and 3(5) () of the BNS.
Arguments in Court: Uniforms, Vehicles, and the Absence of Fear
Senior Advocate , appearing for the petitioner‑lawyer, mounted a two‑pronged attack on the FIR. First, he contended that the complaint itself negated the essential ingredients of because the accused were not wearing police uniforms, did not belong to any specific police station, and were not traveling in a police vehicle. He pressed into service the illustrations appended to Section 308 of the BNS, arguing that unless the victim is “,” the offence does not crystallise. Second, relying on the celebrated decision in , he submitted that even if the allegations were taken at face value, no was made out, warranting the exercise of the High Court’s to quash the proceedings.
The State, represented by High Court Government Pleader , opposed the petition, contending that the narrative in the complaint clearly revealed a threat to implicate the complainant in a false case, which is precisely the kind of fear contemplated by Section 308. The State maintained that the investigation was at a nascent stage and factual aspects – such as whether the accused were indeed dressed in uniform or driving a police vehicle – were matters for police inquiry, not for a summary determination under Section 482.
The Court’s Eyes on the Complaint: Case Trumps Technical Defects
Justice Hegde meticulously scanned the complaint and drew attention to the complainant’s own admission that he had offered ₹2,00,000 and that the demand persisted. The observation is telling:
“The very fact that the complainant has stated that he made a request to accept only ₹2,00,000, gives an indication that the complainant believed that the petitioners are from the Police Department.”
The court categorically rejected the argument that the absence of uniforms or official vehicles was fatal. It held:
“It is not necessary that the petitioners should be wearing the police uniform at the time when they made the demand. Whether the demand was really made or whether the petitioners were present at the time of the alleged incident, whether the complainant paid ₹2,00,000 and whether the petitioners refused ₹2,00,000 are all the matters which require investigation.”
Thus, the core question was whether the complainant was , not the attire of the accused. The complaint itself evidenced such fear, as the complainant admitted to offering a bribe to avoid further trouble.
Relying on Binding Precedent: Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure
The Court anchored its reasoning in the well‑settled parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (1992). It noted that the power to quash an FIR under Section 482 is extraordinary and must be exercised only when, even accepting all allegations as true, no offence is disclosed. The present case did not fall in that exceptional category.
Significantly, the Court drew strength from the recent Constitution Bench judgment in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021), quoting its conclusion with approval:
“When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made… the court only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.”
The High Court stressed that the judiciary should not “” at the threshold, especially when the complaint points to a serious offence like .
Key Observations from the Bench
Justice Hegde made the following pivotal observations that will guide the investigation:
- “As can be seen from the contents of the complaint, one can make out a case that the complainant was as there was a threat to lodge a police complaint against the complainant.”
- “The contents of the complaint do attract . The reason is the contents of the complaint would indicate that there was a demand by the petitioners who made a claim that they belong to the Police Department.”
- “The Court is not required to consider the merits of the allegations and the Court should not scuttle the investigation into allegations in the FIR.”
Dismissal and Its Implications
The petition was dismissed, and the investigation in Crime No. 53/2026 will proceed before the . The ruling reaffirms that courts will not readily interfere with police investigations in purely factual matters, especially where the complaint on its face reveals a threat and demand for money. For legal practitioners, the decision serves as a reminder that the shield of Section 482 CrPC is available only in the , and the initial stage of inquiry is not meant for a on the merits of the accusations. As the investigating officer now moves forward, the question remains whether the evidence can substantiate the serious charge of impersonation and against a member of the legal fraternity.
