Absence Of Proof Of Demand Of Illegal Gratification & Recovery May Be Ground For Acquittal But Not For Quashing FIR: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was considering appeals against order of Karnataka High Court quashing FIRs for Prevention of Corruption Act offences.
Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court
While setting aside the impugned orders of the Karnataka High Court quashing the FIRs in a corruption case against certain police officials, the Supreme Court has held that the absence of proof as to the demand of illegal gratification and recovery may become a ground for discharge and/or ultimate acquittal in the trial, but these cannot become grounds for quashing of the FIR.
The Apex Court was considering a batch of seven appeals preferred by the State of Karnataka.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held, “In the considered view of this Court, the High Court vide the impugned orders has traversed beyond the contours of consideration of a petition under Section 482, CrPC. There were two material aspects which weighed with the High Court, the delay in lodging of the FIR and no evidence of demand/recovery of money. In our view, there cannot be any doubt that these aspects would have to be established through evidence in the criminal trial or may warrant consideration for discharge. Absence of proof as to demand of illegal gratification and recovery thereof, may become a ground for discharge and/or ultimate acquittal in the trial; however, they cannot become grounds for quashing of the FIR.”
AOR Patil Rekha Chandra Gouda represented the Appellant while AOR Vardhman Kaushik represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
Six FIRs were registered against the respondents, including the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Bengaluru and Police Inspector, Central Crime Branch, Bengaluru under Sections 7(a), 13(1)(a) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 384 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Aggrieved by these FIRs, the accused persons filed criminal petitions seeking quashing of the FIRs before the Karnataka High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court, vide four impugned orders, allowed the criminal petitions and quashed the FIRs against these accused persons, primarily on the grounds of lack of prima facie material, unexplained delay, and allegations of malafides.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, explained that the power to quash an FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC is to be exercised sparingly and not as a matter of routine. “Moreover, when a High Court is entertaining a petition for quashing of FIR, it is to refrain from entering into roving and fishing enquiry about the investigative material. What has to be seen is whether, prima facie, the contents of the FIR disclose any commission of a cognizable offence or not. At this initial stage, a ‘mini-trial’ cannot be conducted by the High Court”, it added.
The Bench also refused to accept the High Court's observation in the first impugned order that the registration of certain FIRs amounted to second FIRs for the very same offence, as earlier Crime Nos. 63 and 64 of 2020 had been registered under IPC sections on the same set of allegations. “Upon a perusal of the contents of the FIRs, we are not inclined to accept this reasoning”, it added. Considering the aspects that weighed with the High Court, the Bench held that the High Court, vide the impugned orders, had traversed beyond the contours of consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC.
The Bench reiterated the observations made in State of Chhattisgarh v. Aman Kumar Singh (2023), wherein it was observed that it would be eminently desirable if the High Courts maintain a hands-off approach and not quash a first information report pertaining to “corruption” cases, especially at the stage of investigation, even though certain elements of strong-arm tactics of the ruling dispensation might be discernible.
Thus, allowing the appeals, the Bench set aside the impugned orders. “Needless to add, the respondents are free to exercise their remedies in accordance with law, and the same shall be decided uninfluenced of the observations made hereinabove”, it clarified.
Cause Title: State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Prabhu Shankar & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 766)
Appearance
Appellant: AOR Patil Rekha Chandra Gouda, Additional Advocate General Prateek Chadha, AOR Sanchit Garga, Advocates Kunal Rana, Shashwat Jaiswal, Sreekar Aechuri, Surbhi Soni, Aniket chauhaan, Diksha Arora,Vijender Kumar
Respondent: AOR Vardhman Kaushik, AOR Mrigank Prabhakar, Advocates Sakshi Banga, Astha Singh, N.R. Shwetabh, AOR V. N. Raghupathy