Mr. Arun Kumar G V vs The State Of Karnataka

Headnote AI-drafted · Editorially reviewed

The petitioner, a Police Inspector with the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force (BMTF), filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of FIR registered as Lokayuktha Crime No. 41/2024 for offences punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR arose from a complaint by the second respondent alleging that the petitioner had demanded Rs. 12.5 lakhs from him for closing a complaint of illegal encroachment against the complainant's wife.

The High Court found that the material on record, comprising the complaint, FIR, trap panchanama, pre-trap panchanama, and witness statements, disclosed no sufficient evidence to incriminate the petitioner. The illegal gratification of Rs. 2 lakhs was not recovered from the petitioner but from one Nandish; the petitioner was absent from the scene of occurrence and was not apprehended; the voice recording was of such poor quality that it could not be identified as the petitioner's voice; and no video recording was mentioned in any panchanama or mahazar. The Court reiterated the settled law that proof of both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is the sine qua non for attracting Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Relying on a co-ordinate Bench judgment in Shivaram M.J. vs. State by Lokayuktha (Crl.P. No. 7568/2024, dated 02.06.2025), the Court held that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner in the absence of any material establishing demand and acceptance would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The petition was accordingly allowed and the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed.

Catchwords: quashing of FIR Prevention of Corruption Act Section 7(a) demand and acceptance illegal gratification sine qua non trap proceedings trap panchanama voice recording absence of petitioner at scene abuse of process Lokayuktha BMTF Police Inspector writ petition Articles 226 and 227