Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri P. Manjunath, was an employee of the Revenue Department in the Stamps and Registration wing, holding the substantive post of First Division Assistant. He was ordered to perform the duties of Sub-Registrar at Hosadurga on an in-charge basis. The second respondent, Sri D.H. Guruprasad, had availed a mortgage loan of Rs.18,00,000 from Sri Vasavi Multipurpose Co-operative Society Limited. The Chief Executive Officer of the Society communicated to the petitioner regarding registration of a mortgage deed. The second respondent lodged a complaint dated 02.03.2022 with the Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Chitradurga, alleging that the petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs.10,000 for registering the mortgage deed. Based on this complaint, the Lokayukta Police registered Crime No.03/2022 for offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the complaint and FIR. The court examined the complaint and found that the complainant did not specifically allege that the petitioner demanded a bribe. The complaint only stated that the petitioner 'may demand' bribe. The court held that the essential ingredient of demand under Section 7(a) of the Act was missing. The court also noted that the petitioner was merely an in-charge Sub-Registrar and there was no material to show that he had any authority to register the deed or that he made any demand. The court allowed the petition, quashed the complaint and FIR, and all further proceedings pursuant thereto.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption - Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Quashing of FIR - The petitioner, an in-charge Sub-Registrar, was accused of demanding a bribe of Rs.10,000 for registering a mortgage deed. The court examined the complaint and found no specific allegation of demand by the petitioner. The complainant merely stated that the petitioner 'may demand' bribe. Held that without a clear allegation of demand, the essential ingredient of the offence is missing, and the FIR is liable to be quashed (Paras 1-10). B) Criminal Procedure Code - Inherent Powers - Section 482 of Cr.P.C. - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - The court held that where the allegations in the complaint do not constitute the offence alleged, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash the FIR to prevent abuse of process of law. The complaint must disclose the commission of an offence; mere suspicion or possibility is not enough (Paras 11-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR registered against the petitioner for offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on a complaint alleging demand of bribe, is liable to be quashed when there is no material to show any demand made by the petitioner.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the complaint dated 02.03.2022 (Annexure-C) and the FIR in Crime No.03/2022 dated 02.03.2022 (Annexure-D) and all further proceedings pursuant thereto.
Law Points
- Demand of bribe is sine qua non for offence under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- Mere suspicion or possibility of demand is insufficient to register FIR
- In-charge public officer performing duties of higher post does not automatically attract corruption liability
