Prima facie material of a bribery demand warrants refusal to quash corruption proceedings.

In brief

The question

Whether the FIR and further proceedings in Crime No. 10/2022 should be quashed despite the material indicating a prima facie demand for illegal gratification.

The court held

The Court dismissed the writ petition, thereby refusing to quash the challenged proceedings.

It also directed

The order does not set out a separate determination of the challenge to the 2016 government order.

01Facts

The petitioner, an Assistant Executive Engineer, was accused of demanding illegal gratification in connection with action concerning a building alleged to have been constructed contrary to its sanctioned plan. The complaint alleged that he demanded ₹8,00,000 from the complainant, who negotiated for ₹5,00,000; the conversations were recorded, and the Lokayukta Police registered Crime No. 10/2022 for an offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 3–8, 13–14

The petitioner sought to quash the complaint, FIR and further proceedings, alleging that the complaint was false and lodged out of vengeance; he also challenged a 2016 government order.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 2 · p. 6 · ¶ 10

02Issues

i.Whether the FIR and further proceedings in Crime No. 10/2022 should be quashed despite the material indicating a prima facie demand for illegal gratification.

pp. 5–7 · ¶ 9–17

ii.Whether the petitioner’s challenge to the 2016 government order warranted relief in the writ petition.

p. 2 · ¶ 2 · p. 8 · ¶ 21

03Law Applied

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the bases for seeking quashing.

p. 3 · ¶ 2

The alleged offence was under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

p. 4 · ¶ 3

The Court stated that quashing principles applicable to offences under other penal laws do not apply in the same manner to alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and that courts should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to corruption.

p. 7 · ¶ 18–19

It relied on State of Karnataka and another v. Prabhu Shankar and another, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1446.

p. 8 · ¶ 20

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 7

04Reasoning

The Court found that the conversation between the petitioner and the complainant, as reflected in the trap and entrustment mahazars, disclosed a specific demand of ₹8,00,000 and negotiation over the amount.

p. 7 · ¶ 13–14

It also noted the allegation that the petitioner suggested modifications to the building plan to withdraw the show-cause notice.

p. 7 · ¶ 15

Considering this material, the Court held that a prima facie case existed.

p. 7 · ¶ 16–17

It declined to assess the merits further, reasoning that doing so would amount to a mini-trial and could prejudice the parties.

p. 7 · ¶ 16–17