No Allegation That ₹4.8 Cr Seized From Co-accused’s House Was To Be Used For Elections: Karnataka High Court Quashes Bribery Case Against BJP MP K. Sudhakar
The MP approached the Karnataka High Court challenging the registration of a case against him.
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case of bribery against BJP MP K. Sudhakar, who had allegedly made a call to an IAS Officer seeking help when the co-accused’s house was raided by the Tax Department. The High Court took note of the fact that there was no allegation that the amount of ₹4.8 crore seized from the co-accused’s house was meant to be used for the elections.
The MP approached the High Court challenging the registration of a case against him.
The Single Bench of Justice M.I. Arun held, “There is no other allegation made against the petitioner that the money of Rs.4.8 crores seized in the house of accused no.2 was meant to be used for the elections of the petitioner or to give the same as a bribe to somebody else on behalf of the petitioner. Thus, even if the allegations made against the petitioner are held to be true, they do not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 171B, 171C and 511 of IPC for the petitioner to be charged with the offences that he is presently charged.”
Senior Advocate Prabhuling K. Navadgi represented the Petitioner, while High Court Government Pleader Thejesh represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
One day before the elections to the Chikkaballapura Lok Sabha seat in the year 2024, an income tax raid was conducted on the residence of one Govindappa in Madavara Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk and an unaccounted cash of Rs 4.8 crore was recovered by the Income Tax Department. At that time, the first accused, who was contesting for the election from Chikaballapura Lok Sabha constituency, was said to have messaged an IAS Officer on WhatsApp seeking help.
A complaint to the jurisdictional police was given by the Officer against the petitioner, and a chargesheet came to be filed charging the petitioner (first accused) and Govindappa (second accused) under Sections 171B, 171C, 171E, 171F, and 511 of IPC and also under Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. It was alleged that when an income tax raid was conducted at the residence of the second accused, the petitioner messaged the Officer. Based on the charges alleged, cognisance was taken of the offences against the accused and a case came to be registered. Aggrieved thereby, the accused petitioner approached the High Court.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the averments made in the complaint, FIR and the chargesheet revealed that there was an income tax raid on the house of the second accused, and the petitioner had requested an IAS officer (CW2) to help the second accused.
The Bench further noticed that the only allegation made against the petitioner was that he sought help from an IAS Officer for a third person, and no other allegation was made against the petitioner that the money of Rs 4.8 croreseized in the house of the second accused was meant to be used for the petitioner’s elections.
Holding that the impugned order of the trial Court taking cognisance of the offences alleged was bad in law, the Bench set aside the same. Allowing the appeal, the Bench quashed the petitioners against the petitioner.
Cause Title:Dr. K. Sudhakar v. The State Of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:36849)
Appearance
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Prabhuling K.navadgi
Respondent: High Court Government Pleader Thejesh