Appeal against FIR quash for the offence under PC Act
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2nd January, 2023 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl.P.No.606/2022 titled Sri Jayaraj v. State of Karnataka, whereby under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the High Court quashed the First Information Report1 bearing No.63 of 2021 dated 8.12.2021 for the offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending before the 23rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the written submissions filed by the parties across the Bar.
Allegation is of demand for bribe
3. Respondent No.1 – Jairaj stands exonerated in the departmental proceedings in relation to an inquiry initiated on the basis of the complaint with regard to the allegations of demand for bribe. As a consequence thereof, the FIR in Crime No.63/2021 registered on the basis of the complaint made by the instant appellant, stands quashed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru vide its impugned judgment.
Hon’ble High court has quashed the FIR observing that there is no direct evidence for demand bribe
5. In quashing the FIR the High Court observed that “there is no direct evidence, where this petitioner has demanded any money or bribe from the complainant”. Also that “there is no material to proceed against this accused No.1. That apart, it is 4 worth to mention that there was complaint registered against respondent No.2 in Crime No.555/2018 for both offences under Sections POCSO as well as Section 354 of IPC on the complaint filed by the wife of respondent No.2. During the investigation, the petitioner/accused No.2 said to have summoned the complainant to the police station who is said to have been harassed by them and was demanded money. But later, only in order to overcome the complaint filed against respondent No.2, by his wife this complaint was filed for taking revenge against the police as they had summoned the respondent No.2 to the police for the purpose of investigation in Crime No.555/2018”.
Fact is that the police inspector assured that they would file charge sheet for money
6. At this point in time, we observe that two persons were named as accused whereas the petition for quashing was preferred only by one of the accused, namely, Jairaj. The FIR was categorical that ASI Sivakumar (Accused No.2) had received money and that Police Inspector Jairaj had assured that they would provide chargesheet in lieu of Rs.80,000/- and that the complainant would also have to pay Rs.500 per week when he visits the police station, as a condition of bail.
Hon’ble High Court would not entered into an inquiry which is unwarranted at this stage holding that there is no direct evidence
7. In the aforesaid backdrop, in the considered view of this Court, the approach adopted by the Courts in quashing the FIR in the attending facts and circumstances, is legally unsustainable. It ventured into an inquiry, unwarranted at this stage, holding that there is no direct evidence that the present respondent had demanded any money and that there was no material to proceed against him, completely forgetting, if not ignoring the material which had surfaced during the course of investigation, amongst others, the pendrive, allegedly, indicating his complicity in the crime.
High Court did not consider the fact that the trial is not on the very same evidence
9. We may also observe that it was the pleaded case of the Lokayukta before the High Court that the continuance of the trial was not on the very same evidence as what weighed with the authorities in exonerating the employee in the departmental proceedings. This fact, also appears not to have been considered by the High Court in its correct perspective.
Appeal allowed and the FIR proceedings stand restored
11. Consequentially, the FIR subject matter of the present proceedings stands restored to be taken to its logical end, in accordance with law. We clarify 7 that all questions of fact and law, as also other pleas raised, are left open for the parties to be agitated, if so advised and desired, before the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage.
Party
SANJU RAJAN NAYAR … APPELLANT versus JAYARAJ & ANR. … RESPONDENTS – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 8254/2023).
