IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4546 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
1. P. RAMESH S/O LATE PUTTAVENKATA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS WORKING AS BILL COLLECTOR HUNASAWADI GRAM PANCHAYATH PIRIYAPATTANA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 107 R/AT ALANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH & POST PIRIYAPATTANA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE – 571 107 2. SIDDHARTH S/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS WORKING AS ATTENDER HUNASAWADI GRAM PANCHAYATH PIRIYAPATTANA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 107 R/AT PILAPUR VILLAGE NANDINATHPURA POST PIRIYAPATTANA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE – 571 107 ... PETITIONERS (BY SHRI. KAPIL DIXIT, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU POLICE STATION MYSORE 2. SRI SRINIVASA S/O LATE VENKATA SHETTY BHOOTHANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI PIRIYAPATTANA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE – 571 107 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. B.N. JAGADEESH, FOR R1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 21.11.2016 IN CRIME NO.8/2016 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU, INITIATED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN SO FAR THE PETITIONERS HEREIN ARE CONCERNED BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.P.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard Shri Kapil Dixit, learned advocate for the petitioners and Shri B.N. Jagadeesh, learned standing counsel for Anti-Corruption Bureau (‘ACB’ for short).
2. Second respondent – Srinivasa registered FIR No.08/2016 on 21.11.2016 with respondent No.1- ACB Police alleging that an illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/- was demanded by the PDO, who is accused No.1. Petitioner No.1 is a Bill Collector and Petitioner No.2 is an attender working in Panchayat office. ACB police laid a trap and it was successful. After investigation, police have filed the charge sheet. Petitioners have challenged the FIR in this petition.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioners adverting to the notice dated 21.11.2016 (Annexure - C) submits that a demand notice was issued to the complainant to pay property tax of Rs.4,229/-. Accordingly, the complainant had paid Rs.4,000/- to petitioner No.1 towards payment of tax. However, due to inimical disposition, FIR has been lodged. He further submits that tax demand matches with the amount of Rs.4,000/- paid by the complainant. Therefore, criminal proceedings against the petitioners are false and accordingly he prays the same may be quashed.
4. Shri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned standing counsel for the ACB argued that the charge sheet has already been filed and criminal case is pending before the learned Special Judge and it is at the stage of recording evidence.
5. The solitary defence urged on behalf of the petitioners is that amount of Rs.4,000/- which is allegedly paid by the complainant is towards payment of tax. Whether the sum of Rs.4,000/- paid by the complainant is towards tax or not is a matter to be decided based on the evidence. Therefore, trial is necessary.
6. In the circumstances, in my view, no ground is made out to interfere by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
7. In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV