Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Says Lack Of Proof Of Bribe Demand, Recovery Not Ground To Quash FIR

The Supreme Court has said that the absence of proof of demand and acceptance of a bribe may become a ground for discharge or acquittal of an accused, but not for quashing the FIR at the investigation stage.

Court made the observation while setting aside the Karnataka High Court's September 8, 2021 orders quashing six FIRs lodged against then Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Bengaluru, Prabhu Shankar, then Inspector Niranjan Kumar C and others on allegations of extortion and bribery.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh held that the high court, through the impugned orders, had traversed beyond the contours of consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) [renumbered as Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)].

Why did the Supreme Court hold that the bribery FIRs could not be quashed?

Court noted that two material aspects had weighed with the high court while quashing the FIRs: the delay in lodging them and the absence of evidence regarding demand or 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," the Bench said.

Court pointed out that it is settled law 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 an FIR, it has to refrain from entering into a roving and fishing enquiry into the investigative material. What has to be seen is whether, prima facie, the contents of the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence.

At this initial stage, the Court said, a ‘mini-trial’ cannot be conducted by the high court.

Karnataka government challenged quashing of bribery FIRs

Assailing the high court's judgments, the Karnataka government contended that each FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and did not fall within any one of the exceptions laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992).

It further submitted that the high court's finding in all four impugned orders that the FIRs were registered maliciously was unsupported by any material on record.

The government argued that the high court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC by conducting a mini-trial and evaluating the veracity of evidence at the investigation stage, instead of restricting itself to examining whether the contents of the FIR disclosed an offence.

On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 1, Prabhu Shankar, submitted that the high court had rightly quashed the FIRs against the respondents.

He contended that there were material inconsistencies and contradictions in the various FIRs. Moreover, on the same set of allegations, respondent No. 1 had been exonerated in a departmental enquiry.

The counsel argued that the proceedings were not a pursuit of justice but a direct consequence of political pressure and departmental infighting, arising from the respondent's investigation into illegal cigarette distribution during the Covid-19 lockdown period.

Supreme Court rejects finding that money was not paid directly to accused

Allowing the appeal, the Bench said the high court's view that the money was not paid directly to respondent No. 1 also could not stand at the stage of prima facie evaluation of the FIRs.

Court also rejected the contention that registration of certain FIRs in the case amounted to second FIRs for the very same offence, since earlier FIRs had been registered under IPC sections on the same set of allegations.

Holding that the impugned orders could not be sustained in law, the Supreme Court clarified that the respondents were free to exercise their remedies in accordance with law, and that the same would be decided uninfluenced by the observations made in the judgment.

Case Title: State of Karnataka & Anr Vs Prabhu Shankar & And

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh

Date of Judgment: July 30, 2026