Bribe Case FIR Cannot Be Quashed Merely Because the Public Servant Did Not Personally Receive Money; Even Indirect Demand Through Others Can Attract Section 7 PC Act
Case Name: The State by Lokayuktha Police v. Sri K. Rangayya & Anr.
Citation: 2026 INSC 574
Date of Judgment/Order: May 26, 2026
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Held: The Supreme Court held that at the stage of quashing an FIR in a corruption case, the High Court must only examine whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose a prima facie offence and cannot conduct a mini-trial by assessing trap proceedings, recovery, phenolphthalein test results or departmental enquiry material. The Court further held that Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not limited to cases where the public servant personally demands or receives money. By virtue of Explanation 2, even an attempt to obtain undue advantage for another person, directly or through a third party, can fall within Section 7. Therefore, a veiled or indirect demand by a public servant asking the complainant to “do something” for subordinate officials may prima facie amount to an attempt to obtain undue advantage.
Summary: The complainant alleged that his two-wheeler and mobile phone had been seized by the respondent, a Police Sub-Inspector, in connection with allegations of illegal transportation of ration rice. When the complainant repeatedly approached the police station for return of his property, he was allegedly told that the respondent had spoken to one private person, who demanded INR 50,000 on the respondent’s instructions. Later, when the complainant met the respondent, the respondent directed release of the two-wheeler but allegedly told him that he had “not done anything” for him and should “do something” for the other police officials. Thereafter, a constable allegedly demanded INR 5,000, later reduced to INR 3,000 plus INR 500 as penalty. The Lokayuktha Police registered an FIR under Section 7(a) of the PC Act. The Karnataka High Court quashed the FIR against the respondent on the ground that there was no direct demand or acceptance by him. The Supreme Court reversed this view, holding that the High Court wrongly examined evidentiary aspects at the FIR stage and failed to appreciate the enlarged scope of Section 7(a) read with Explanation 2, which covers attempts to obtain undue advantage for another person and even through a third party. The Court distinguished judgments such as K. Shanthamma, Soundarajan and Jagtar Singh, observing that those cases dealt with proof after trial, whereas the present case concerned only the prima facie threshold for investigation.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State by Lokayuktha Police, set aside the Karnataka High Court’s judgment dated 23.01.2024, and restored FIR Crime No. 04/2023 dated 03.06.2023 registered against the respondent under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court held that the allegations, if accepted at face value, prima facie disclosed an offence and that the High Court had impermissibly conducted a mini-trial at the quashing stage. The proceedings were revived and the Trial Court was directed to proceed in accordance with law. The Supreme Court clarified that its observations were only for deciding whether a prima facie case existed and would not influence the final determination of guilt or innocence at trial. Pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.