Facts
The petitioner, a Revenue Inspector, challenged the complaint and FIR registered against him under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging that he demanded illegal gratification of ₹1,60,000 from the second respondent for pending work; the amount was ultimately negotiated to ₹1,45,000
Source reference: p.3–4The complainant recorded conversations with the petitioner, and a transcript was included in the entrustment mahazar.
Source reference: p.4–5The proposed trap failed
Source reference: p.4–5The petitioner sought to quash the complaint, FIR and consequent proceedings, arguing that the amount discussed did not tally with the currency entrusted for the trap
Source reference: p.2, p.4–5Issues
Whether the complaint and FIR registered under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, should be quashed at the investigation stage
Source reference: p.2, p.4–5Whether the alleged discrepancy between the amount discussed and the currency recorded in the entrustment mahazar warranted quashing the FIR
Source reference: p.4–6Law Applied
The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the complaint and FIR
Source reference: p.2The Court considered Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, under which the case had been registered
Source reference: p.4–6Relying on State of Karnataka and Another v. Prabhu Shankar and Another, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1446, the Court stated that a High Court should adopt a “hands-off” approach when asked to quash a complaint or FIR concerning offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act
Source reference: p.6Reasoning
The Court found that the recorded conversation, reduced to writing and forming part of the entrustment mahazar, provided sufficient material to register the FIR under Section 7A
Source reference: p.5–6It did not accept the petitioner’s reliance on the asserted mismatch between the conversation and the currency entrusted as a basis for quashing the FIR.
Source reference: p.4–6Applying the cited restraint on quashing corruption-related complaints and FIRs, the Court held that the available material was sufficient for the investigation to proceed
Source reference: p.4–6Holding
The Court dismissed the petition and declined to quash the complaint, FIR or further proceedings
It left the petitioner at liberty to challenge any adverse report in accordance with law.
Source reference: p.7Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731
Original Court PDF
SRI. R. SANTHOSH,vsTHE STATE BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
