Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Karnataka through the Lokayukta Police against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court at Dharwad, which had quashed FIR No. 04/2023 registered against Respondent No. 1, a Police Sub-Inspector, under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The background of the case is that on 15.03.2023, the Respondent No. 1, accompanied by other police officials, approached the Complainant (Respondent No. 2) near a temple, threatened him with accusations of illegally selling ration rice, and seized his Suzuki Access 125 two-wheeler and Redmi mobile phone. The Complainant was instructed to report to the police station, where he was informed that a case had been registered against him for transporting rice meant for sale through Fair Price Depots. From 15.03.2023 until 01.06.2023, the Complainant repeatedly visited the police station seeking the return of his seized vehicle. On 01.06.2023, the Respondent No. 1 allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 5,000 from the Complainant for the return of the vehicle. The Complainant lodged a complaint with the Lokayukta Police, leading to the registration of FIR under Section 7(a) of the PC Act. The High Court quashed the FIR on the ground that there was no demand or acceptance of money by the Respondent No. 1. The legal issues considered were whether the High Court could quash the FIR at the pre-evidence stage by conducting a mini-trial on the existence of demand and acceptance. The State argued that the FIR disclosed a prima facie case and that the High Court erred in appreciating evidence at the threshold. The Respondent No. 1 contended that there was no demand and that the complaint was false. The Supreme Court analyzed that the allegations in the FIR, if taken at face value, clearly indicated a demand for bribe, and the question of acceptance was a matter of evidence. The Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by concluding that there was no demand without a trial, and that the FIR could not be quashed at the pre-evidence stage. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment, restored the FIR and all proceedings, and directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7(a) - Pre-evidence stage - High Court quashed FIR on ground of no demand or acceptance - Held that at the stage of quashing, the court cannot conduct a mini-trial or weigh evidence; the FIR disclosed a prima facie case of demand of bribe for return of seized vehicle, and the High Court erred in concluding absence of demand without trial (Paras 2, 10-15). B) Criminal Law - Demand and Acceptance - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7(a) - Prima facie case - Complainant alleged that accused PSI demanded bribe for return of seized vehicle - Held that the allegations in the FIR, if taken at face value, constitute a demand, and the question of acceptance is a matter of evidence; quashing at threshold was improper (Paras 3-8, 16-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR registered under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at the pre-evidence stage, on the ground that there was no demand or acceptance of bribe by the accused.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, restored the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom, and directed the trial court to proceed with the matter expeditiously.
Law Points
- Quashing of FIR at pre-evidence stage
- Demand and acceptance under Section 7(a) PC Act
- Prima facie case for corruption
- Interference under Section 482 CrPC
