Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/1559/2025 of STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs SRI. R NAFEEZ KHAN on 1 July 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:32510 CRL.RP No. 1559 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1559 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE, BENGALURU CITY, M.S.BUILDING,
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1559 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE,
BENGALURU CITY,
M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001,
REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LETHIF B., SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
AND:
1.
SRI. R. NAFEEZ KHAN,
S/O LATE RASOOL KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT,
OFFICE OF THE BBMP,
BYATARAYANAPURA,
YELAHANKA ZONE,
BENGALURU-560092.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. A. DHARMESH, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER 22.01.2025 PASSED BY THE XXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE (P.C ACT)
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
BENGALURU
(CCH-24)
IN
SPL.CC.NO.16393/2023
IN
CR.NO.3/2019,
FOR
THE
OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE
UNDER
SECTION 7(a) OF P.C. ACT ON A APPLICATION FILED UNDER
SECTIONS 227 AND 239 OF CR.P.C.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. On perusal of paragraph No.5 of the impugned order, it is clear that the complainant went and enquired about the registration cost and other expenses and the respondent replied that it may cost about Rs.6,000/- to Rs.6,500/-. There is no any direct demand for bribe amount and the same is taken note of by the Trial Court in paragraph No.9 and discussed in detail that the said information cannot be construed as a demand for illegal gratification. The approach of the informant in making and imagining the allegation of demand based on the information of the Sub-Registrar Office is unacceptable. The Trial Court also given the reasoning that it will not come within the definition and ingredients of Section
HC-KAR
7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to entertain this revision petition and hence, the revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, I.A.No.1/2026 is also dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11