Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ms. Shweta Prabhu, a journalist employed with M/s. TV9, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashing of FIR in Crime No.45/2014 registered at Sadashivanagar Police Station, Bengaluru, pending before the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The FIR was lodged by the second respondent, Sri D.K. Shivakumar, a sitting Minister of Karnataka State, against the petitioner and two others for alleged offences punishable under Sections 9 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The complaint dated 10.03.2014 alleged that two persons claiming to be representatives of a London-based company, M/s. Energo Power Company, along with one Sri Subhash Balaji and the petitioner, met the complainant and stated that the company wanted to start an electricity generating unit. The complainant alleged that the petitioner and others attempted to bribe him. The petitioner contended that she was merely present as a journalist and had no role in any alleged bribe offer. The High Court examined the contents of the complaint and found that the allegations did not make out a prima facie case against the petitioner under Sections 9 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court held that Section 9 requires acceptance of gratification for exercising personal influence with a public servant, and Section 12 punishes abetment of such offences. Mere presence of the petitioner without any demand or acceptance of bribe or any act of abetment did not constitute the alleged offences. The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR against the petitioner, holding that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Abuse of Process - FIR registered against journalist for accompanying persons who allegedly offered bribe to a Minister - Held that mere presence without any demand or acceptance of bribe does not make out offence under Sections 9 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - FIR quashed (Paras 1-5). B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Offence under Section 9 - Taking gratification for exercise of personal influence with public servant - Ingredients - The section requires that a person accepts or obtains gratification for himself or any other person to exercise personal influence with a public servant - Held that mere accompanying persons who allegedly offered bribe does not satisfy ingredients of Section 9 (Paras 2-5). C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Offence under Section 12 - Punishment for abetment of offences defined in Section 8 or 9 - Abetment requires intentional aiding or instigation - Held that mere presence of petitioner without any act of abetment does not constitute offence under Section 12 (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR registered against the petitioner for offences under Sections 9 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, should be quashed as an abuse of process of law?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR in Crime No.45/2014 against the petitioner, holding that the allegations did not make out a prima facie case under Sections 9 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.
Law Points
- Quashing of FIR
- Abuse of process of law
- Ingredients of Section 9 and Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- Criminal conspiracy
- Prima facie case
