01Facts
The complainant’s allegations led the Lokayukta Police to register Crime No. 3/2026 against accused No. 1 and the petitioner, accused No. 2, for an offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
p. 4The trap was conducted in respect of accused No. 1; the allegation against the petitioner was that accused No. 1 told the complainant that Rs. 10,000 had to be paid to him
p. 4The petitioner relied on a Deputy Commissioner’s memorandum identifying another person as the applicant for conversion of the land for a petrol pump, and on a document concerning the handing over of the relevant work to him, to contend that he was unconnected with the alleged work.
pp. 4–5He sought to quash the FIR under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The investigation was ongoing, and the complainant did not appear despite service.
pp. 2–302Issues
i.1. Whether the FIR against the petitioner for an offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act should be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS while the investigation remains ongoing.
pp. 2–3, 5–6ii.2. Whether the petitioner’s documentary contentions—that he was unconnected with the land-conversion work and that the complainant’s connection to the property was unsubstantiated—could justify quashing the FIR at this stage.
pp. 4–603Law Applied
The petition was brought under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to seek quashing of the FIR.
p. 2The alleged offence was under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
p. 2, 4The Court applied the principle that, where investigation is still in progress and the petitioner’s grounds raise matters requiring investigation, those grounds do not warrant quashing the FIR at that stage.
pp. 3, 5–6No precedent was cited.
Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 7
04Reasoning
The Court noted that the trap concerned accused No. 1 and that the allegation against the petitioner was that accused No. 1 had said Rs. 10,000 was payable to him.
p. 4The petitioner’s reliance on the memorandum and handover document, as well as his challenge to the asserted lease arrangement, raised factual matters for the Investigating Officer to examine.
pp. 4–6Because the investigation was incomplete, the Court declined to determine those factual contentions in the quashing petition.
pp. 5–605Holding
The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner’s grounds did not justify quashing the FIR while the investigation remained ongoing.
pp. 6–7It left the petitioner at liberty to challenge the final report, if aggrieved, and disposed of any pending interim application as not surviving for consideration.
p. 7Original Court PDF
ARVINDvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
