IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8225 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
SRI Y.B.NAGABHUSHAN S/O LATE N. BASAVARAJAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS WORKING AS MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER CHITRADURGA-577 501 … PETITIONER (BY SHRI. M.S. BHAGWAT, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA REPRESENTED BY ITS POLICE INSPECTOR CHITRADURGA POLICE STATION CHITRADURGA-577 501 2. SRI. S. ANSARI S/O SHEIKH DAVOOD AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.57/4, ANNAMALAI NAGAR 1ST STREET, WESTMOUNTLAM CHENNAI-33 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. B.S. PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SHRI. RAVI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT BEARING CRIME NO.14/13 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT - POLICE ON THE FILE OF THE SPL. JUDGE AND PRL. DIST AND S.J., CHITRADURGA (ANNEXURE-A) AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREON.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
[ ORDER Heard Shri M.S. Bhagwat, learned advocate for the petitioner, Shri B.S. Prasad, learned advocate for Lokayutha and Shri Ravi Shankar, learned advocate for respondent No.2.
2. This petition is filed challenging FIR No.14/2013 registered by Lokayutha Police alleging that petitioner, a Motor Vehicle Inspector had demanded illegal gratification.
3. Shri Bhagwat, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that on 18.09.2013, at 11:25 a.m., petitioner while on duty on the National Highway – 13, near G.R. Halli, Chitradurga, inspected a vehicle bearing No.KA-04-AA-9657 and prepared an investigation report alleging inter alia that driver had failed to produce ‘weight slip’ in compliance with Sections 113 and 114 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988; that there was excessive load in the Lorry which was unsafe and endangered road users. Accordingly, the driver of the vehicle was called upon to produce actual weight of the consignment. Thereafter, the driver (respondent No.2) lodged a complaint to the Lokayuktha Police at 14:00 hours stating that RTO Officer had demanded illegal gratification. A trap was laid on the same day and it was unsuccessful. A panchanama was drawn at 18:30. As trap was unsuccessful, amount smeared with phenolphthalein powder was returned to the complainant. On the following day, a seizure mahazar was drawn and certain documents were seized.
4. Shri Bhagwat contended that the investigation report was prepared at 11:25 a.m. and given to the driver. Without complying with the instructions contained in the report, the driver with malafide intention lodged a false complaint with the Lokayuktha police. The name of the person who had allegedly demanded the amount is not forthcoming in the complaint. Money has also been returned to the complainant. Once, the money is returned, there was nothing more left for the Investigating Officer to continue the investigation and conduct the seizure panchanama on the following day. The sequence of events clearly demonstrate complainant’s malafide intention. Accordingly, he prays for allowing this petition.
5. Shri Prasad, learned advocate for the Lokayuktha police, adverting to the complaint submitted that the complainant has clearly stated that, when he went to the Lokayuktha office, they gave a voice recorder and by using the same, he recorded the conversation between him and the petitioner and he returned the same to the Lokayuktha office. Thus, there is prima facie evidence against the petitioner.
6. With regard to failure of trap, Shri Prasad relied upon a decision of this Court in State of Karnataka Vs. H.K. Ashwath1 and contended that if there is a demand made by an Officer, it constitutes an offence. He argued that petitioner, without joining investigation has rushed to this Court and obtained an order of stay. If petitioner joins investigation and puts forth his version, the same will be considered while preparing the final report. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
7. With regard to the malafides alleged against the petitioner, Shri Prasad submitted that complainant-driver hails from Tamil Nadu. The incident has taken place when lorry 1 Crl.RP.No.353/2016 decided on 22.02.2019 was intercepted on the National Highway near Chitradurga. Therefore, no allegation of malafides is attributable against the driver.
8. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records.
9. In the light of the facts narrated hereinabove by the learned advocates for the parties, it is clear that the incident has taken place on the National Highway. Complainant (driver of the vehicle) is from Tamil Nadu. The contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that use of the voice recorder is not found in the complaint is untenable because the perusal of the complaint shows that the complainant visited the Lokayuktha office, who gave a voice recorder to him and the complainant returned the same after recording the conversation between him and the petitioner. In the investigation report, the time is recorded as 11:25 a.m. It is only thereafter, the complainant has approached the Lokayuktha Authorities. Incident having taken place on the National Highway and complainant being from Tamil Nadu, registration of the complaint at 2:00 p.m.
cannot be considered as belated. The person who is not from local area may have spent some time in locating the office and registering the complaint. The petitioner has approached this Court immediately after registration of the complaint. It is appropriate for him to join and co-operate in the investigation and await final report. In the facts and circumstances, I see no ground to interfere at this stage. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
10. At this stage, Shri Bhagwat, learned advocate for the petitioner seeks liberty to approach this Court, after investigation is complete. He is at liberty to do so, if permissible in law.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV