ORDER : MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J. Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioners, learned Special Prosecutor for the State/Lokayukta Police/respondent No.1, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant and perused the material on record. 2. Writ Petition Nos.11255/2025 and 11549/2025 are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), whereas Criminal Petition No.6711/2025 is preferred under Section 528 of the BNSS. 3. Writ Petition No.11255/2025 is filed by accused No.1; Writ Petition No.11549/2025 is filed by accused Nos.2 and 5; and Criminal Petition No.6711/2025 is filed by accused Nos.3 and 4. Since all these petitions arise out of the same FIR seeking identical reliefs, they are being disposed of together by this common order. 4. The petitioners are seeking to quash the FIR registered by the Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru, in Crime No.17/2025 and all consequential proceedings pending before the Court of the XXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bengaluru. 5. FIR is registered for the offences punishable under section 7(a) & 7(A) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (Amendment Act-2018) (in short ‘PC Act’) on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Sri. Channegowda K.K., S/o Kallavarayya, on 01.04.2025. The FIR names seven accused persons and four other unknown individuals. 6. Brief Facts of the Case: The complaint is lodged alleging that the complainant and his wife had purchased a residential property in Bengaluru in August 2022, which had been mortgaged to Canara Bank. Due to financial difficulties, they executed a Lease-cum-Possession Agreement in favour of one Ravikumar in 2022. Later, needing further funds, the complainant borrowed money from accused No.6, Somasekhar, and his wife. Out of the Rs.55 lakhs agreed, Rs.35 lakhs were transferred to the complainant, and Rs.17 lakhs were returned in cash. The complainant states that he subsequently repaid Rs.30 lakhs by online transfer, leaving Rs.8 lakhs due. He alleges that Somasekhar, with an intention to grab the property, filed a false complaint in January 2024, leading to registration of FIR No.55/2024 under Sections 406, 420, 506 IPC against the complainant and his wife. His wife was arrested and suspended from work, and the complainant obtained anticipatory bail and an interim stay from this Court. On 15.01.2025, the Lease-cum-Possession Agreement was cancelled after refunding Rs.65 lakhs to Ravikumar. His wife was arrested and suspended from work, and the complainant obtained anticipatory bail and an interim stay from this Court. On 15.01.2025, the Lease-cum-Possession Agreement was cancelled after refunding Rs.65 lakhs to Ravikumar. On 18.03.2025, while the complainant visited the property, accused police personnel (including accused No.5) along with unidentified persons allegedly detained him, trespassed into the property, switched off CCTV, and forcibly took possession. His attempt to lodge a complaint was allegedly refused. The Station House Officer, accused No.1, allegedly pressured the complainant to settle the matter with accused No.6, threatening criminal action including opening a rowdy-sheet or invoking Karnataka Control Of Organised Crime Act, 2000, (for short ‘KCOC Act’). It is further alleged that accused No.2 contacted the complainant’s relatives insisting that the property be sold to persons indicated by them. The complainant was repeatedly summoned to different locations where accused No.1 and staff allegedly demanded execution of documents to transfer the property to their nominees. On 28.03.2025, the complainant was allegedly coerced at the police station into executing an agreement of sale in favour of accused Nos.3 and 4 for Rs.2.05 crores, though the market value was around Rs.3.50 crores. A sum of Rs.4,00,500/- was transferred from the account of accused No.3, and Rs.1,00,000/- was to be paid in cash. Signatures were allegedly obtained under coercion, and threats were issued to both the complainant and his wife. 7. Contentions of the learned Counsel for Petitioner/Accused No.1 in W.P.No.11255/2025 are as under: i. Even if taken at its face value, complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients to attract an offence under Sections 7(a) or 7A of the PC Act. There is neither any allegation of demand nor acceptance of any illegal gratification, nor any undue advantage sought by the petitioner in his capacity as a public servant. No public duty was pending with the petitioner in relation to the complainant, and thus, the question of influencing or forbearing performance of any official act does not arise. The alleged audio recording is devoid of any proof of demand or acceptance. The complaint merely narrates a civil dispute between the complainant and third parties, in which the petitioner has been unnecessarily dragged without any specific overt act attributed to him. The alleged audio recording is devoid of any proof of demand or acceptance. The complaint merely narrates a civil dispute between the complainant and third parties, in which the petitioner has been unnecessarily dragged without any specific overt act attributed to him. Even assuming the allegations to be true, they at best relate to a purported attempt to compel transfer of property, which does not fall within the purview of corruption offences under the PC Act. ii. It is further contended that there is no independent verification, trap, recovery, or corroboration to demonstrate the petitioner’s involvement in any corrupt activity. The panchanama and investigation records do not indicate any demand or receipt of bribe. No property was transferred to the petitioner, and no money was recovered from him. It is submitted that the entire recording process and alleged trap were orchestrated by the complainant and his associates, who are interested and inimical persons, thereby rendering the complaint motivated and malicious. The petitioner emphasizes that the allegations are bald, vague and inherently improbable, constituting a clear abuse of process of law and therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings based on such unsubstantiated accusations would subject the petitioner to unnecessary harassment and irreparable prejudice. iii. It is further contended that the very foundation of the complaint is falsified by the subsequent conduct of the complainant, inasmuch as the property in question has been agreed to be sold by the complainant himself to one Sri Chennakeshava Murthy on 31.07.2025 for a sale consideration of Rs.2,05,00,000/-. This, according to the petitioner, demonstrates that the allegation in the FIR that the market value of the property was Rs.3,50,00,000/- is wholly incorrect and deliberately inflated. The complainant’s own transaction at the very same value allegedly fixed in the impugned agreement of sale indicates that the complaint is malafide, exaggerated, and intended only to falsely implicate the petitioner. 8. Contentions of the learned counsel for petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 5 in W.P.No.11549/2025 are as under: i. The petitioners are innocent of the allegations and have no connection or transaction with the complainant. They neither had investigative powers nor any authority to close or influence the criminal case registered against the complainant, and the complaint itself contains no specific overt acts attributing demand, acceptance, or any undue advantage to the petitioners. They neither had investigative powers nor any authority to close or influence the criminal case registered against the complainant, and the complaint itself contains no specific overt acts attributing demand, acceptance, or any undue advantage to the petitioners. Even assuming the complaint to be true, it does not disclose the essential ingredients of Section 7(a) or Section 7A of the PC Act, as there is no allegation of demand, acceptance, or obtaining of any illegal gratification, nor is there any averment of misuse of personal influence to induce any public servant. The alleged transaction pertains to transfer of immovable property with stated sale consideration and not to any illegal gratification, and such civil or commercial dealings, even if disputed, do not attract the provisions of the PC Act. There is also no trap, recovery, transfer of property, or any independent verification of demand, and the complaint appears motivated, filed to wreak vengeance, as the complainant himself is an accused in a case within the same police station. ii. It is further contended that the petitioners themselves are public servants and therefore, the provision of Section 7A, which contemplates a non-public servant inducing a public servant, is not attracted. The complaint does not allege that the petitioners had any role in performing, forebearing, or influencing any official act in discharge of any public duty. The alleged delay of 13 days in lodging the complaint is fatal, and the complaint is self-contradictory, lacking any factual foundation to constitute demand or acceptance. No bribe money was recovered, nor is there any transcript or corroboration of demand. The panchnama and material on record do not reveal any element of demand, acceptance, or transfer of any undue advantage. Thus, the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose commission of any offence under the PC Act or IPC. The complaint is therefore an abuse of process of law, and continuing proceedings would cause grave prejudice, harassment, and irreparable injury to the Petitioners who have been falsely implicated without any legal or factual basis. 9. Contentions of the learned counsel for petitioner/accused Nos.3 and 4 in Crl.P.No.6711/2025 are as under: i. The complaint lodged by the second respondent and the consequential registration of FIR is frivolous, malafide and amounts to abuse of process of law. 9. Contentions of the learned counsel for petitioner/accused Nos.3 and 4 in Crl.P.No.6711/2025 are as under: i. The complaint lodged by the second respondent and the consequential registration of FIR is frivolous, malafide and amounts to abuse of process of law. They deny any relationship or nexus with accused No.1 and contend that there are no financial or personal transactions between them and accused No.1. The allegation that they conspired to embezzle the property of the complainant is false, and in fact, it was the complainant who had voluntarily approached them to execute a sale deed owing to his financial difficulties, and had himself insisted upon registration within a month. They claim to be bona fide purchasers of the property for valuable consideration, with no knowledge of any dispute between the complainant and accused No.1, and their implication in the FIR is only to harass and tarnish their reputation. ii. It is further contended that a perusal of the trap panchanama reveals that the shadow witness had not accompanied the complainant inside the hotel when the alleged signatures were taken, thereby nullifying any allegation of involvement. It is also submitted that the house search conducted at their premises yielded no incriminating articles, documents or valuables, as recorded in the search report. It is argued that there is no prima facie material to proceed against them, and that the criminal proceedings are initiated with malafide intentions. 10. Learned Special Prosecutor for the State/Lokayukta Police / respondent no.1 has filed statement of objections and contended that the complaint dated 01.04.2025 was duly lodged by the second respondent, along with audio recordings, authorization letter, and supporting material, which prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence under Sections 7(a) and 7(A) of the PC Act. Upon conducting a preliminary inquiry, it was found that the accused, being a public servant, had allegedly coerced the complainant to transfer his immovable property in favour of a third party known to the accused, purportedly in exchange for extending undue official favour and mediation in connection with criminal proceedings pending against the complainant. Based on the material furnished and the inquiry conducted, FIR in Crime No.17/2025 was registered and a trap team was constituted. The Pre-Trap Mahazar recorded the demand for undue advantage by the accused. The allegations include demand of undue advantage, misuse of official position, and abuse of public office. Based on the material furnished and the inquiry conducted, FIR in Crime No.17/2025 was registered and a trap team was constituted. The Pre-Trap Mahazar recorded the demand for undue advantage by the accused. The allegations include demand of undue advantage, misuse of official position, and abuse of public office. Therefore, no case is made out for interference at the stage of investigation. The petitioners are attempting to stall a lawful investigation by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, which is not warranted in the absence of exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 11. The learned Special Prosecutor for State/Lokayukta has relied on the following Judgments to contend as under: i. In the case of Lalitha Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others AIR 2014 SC 187 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not prevented or prohibited the conduct of preliminary enquiry, and in fact referring specifically to corruption cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that preliminary inquiry can be conducted by the Investigating Officer. Though, the Supreme Court has stated that in some cases the registration of FIR is mandatory, the Hon’ble Apex Court does not stipulate that the preliminary enquiry or the proceedings will be vitiated if the FIR is not registered as mandated. ii. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shri Ram Singh AIR 2000 SC 870 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that every illegality or irregularity in investigation does not vitiate the entire proceedings. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant has filed statement of objections and vehemently opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner/accused No.1, who is a serving Police Inspector, in collusion with other accused has abused his official position to illegally coerce respondent No.2 and his wife— who is a Government Officer—into transferring their residential property worth more than Rs.3.50 Crores to the relatives of the petitioners at a grossly undervalued price. To achieve this objective, the petitioners manipulated official authority, registered a false FIR in Crime No.55/2024 under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of IPC, and arrested the respondent’s wife in violation of mandatory safeguards, resulting in her judicial custody and suspension from service. To achieve this objective, the petitioners manipulated official authority, registered a false FIR in Crime No.55/2024 under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of IPC, and arrested the respondent’s wife in violation of mandatory safeguards, resulting in her judicial custody and suspension from service. Thereafter, the petitioners subjected the respondent No.2 to threats of registering further false cases, opening rowdy-sheet and invoking the KCOC Act, with the clear intention of extorting his property through coercion, intimidation, and abuse of police powers. 13. It is further contended that on 01.04.2025, during the continuation of the coercive attempts, when the petitioners and other accused persons summoned the respondent and his wife to Kamadhenu Hotel, exerted pressure to execute property documents in favour of accused No.3 and accused No.4. The officials of Karnataka Lokayukta conducted a trap, seized incriminating documents, voice recordings, and apprehended the accused persons red-handed while demanding and attempting to obtain unlawful gratification. The records of the investigation, including the Pre-Trap and trap mahazars, call recordings, complaint, and statements of independent witnesses, establish demand, coercion, and corrupt acts by a public servant falling squarely within Section 7(a) and 7A of the PC Act. The allegations disclose grave misuse of public office, criminal conspiracy and extortion, thereby warranting investigation. Thus, at this preliminary stage, the FIR cannot be quashed, and the petitioners must face investigation, as the present case involves serious allegations supported by material evidence. 14. Issue arise for consideration: (i) Whether the allegations on record prima facie disclose the ingredients of the offences under Sections 7(a) and 7A of the PC Act, 1988? (ii) Whether the proceedings are an abuse of process of law, warranting interference under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023? 15. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the complaint, FIR, seizure mahazar, audio recordings, sale agreements and other materials collected during investigation, this Court is of the opinion that no foundational material exists to constitute a prima facie case to attract the ingredients of the offence alleged in the FIR under Sections 7(a) and 7A of the PC Act. The entire allegation centers around the assertion that the complainant was “coerced” into executing a sale agreement relating to his immovable property. The entire allegation centers around the assertion that the complainant was “coerced” into executing a sale agreement relating to his immovable property. Even if that allegation is assumed to be true at this stage, a civil transaction of sale of immovable property, without any evidence of demand or acceptance of any monetary or non-monetary gratification by a public servant for performance of an official act, does not satisfy the statutory ingredients of the PC Act. 16. On careful perusal of the complaint, mahazar, audio recordings, and accompanying material, it is evident that there are no specific, categorical, or unambiguous allegations attributing any demand or acceptance of illegal gratification by accused Nos.1, 2, or 5. The prosecution material does not prima facie disclose any instance where the petitioners, being public servants, demanded any undue advantage for themselves or for any other person, nor does it indicate receipt or attempted receipt thereof, in connection with performance of any official act. The alleged transaction relates to the execution of a private sale agreement of immovable property, which the complainant asserts to have been obtained through coercion. Such allegation, even if taken at face value, does not disclose any element of illegal gratification in exchange for official favour, as mandated under Sections 7(a) or 7A of the PC Act. 17. The audio recordings furnished by the complainant, upon which reliance is placed, do not contain any assertion or conversation indicating demand or acceptance of monetary or other valuable consideration. The allegations primarily pertain to civil and property disputes. Even in the trap mahazar, the alleged recovery pertains only to property-related documents, and not to any money, currency notes, or bribe-linked articles. It is well-settled that demand for illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under Sections 7(a) and 7A, of the PC Act. In the absence of such indispensable foundational facts, mere allegations do not attract the penal consequences of corruption statutes. 18. With regard to accused Nos.2 and 5, the records do not indicate any statutory duty, authority, or official function with respect to the dispute between the complainant and the private parties. There is no material suggesting that accused Nos.2 and 5 either facilitated, mediated, or induced any public servant to demand or receive any undue advantage, which is essential to invoke Section 7A of the PC Act. Hence, the very applicability of Section 7A is misconceived. 19. There is no material suggesting that accused Nos.2 and 5 either facilitated, mediated, or induced any public servant to demand or receive any undue advantage, which is essential to invoke Section 7A of the PC Act. Hence, the very applicability of Section 7A is misconceived. 19. Prima facie, the nature of allegations and documents reveal that the dispute between the complainant and one Somasekhar Aradhya (accused No.6) regarding financial transactions is predominantly civil in nature. The subject matter of proceedings in Crime No.55/2024, which stands stayed by this Court in a Crl.P.No.3515/2024 filed by the complainant’s wife. The execution of alleged sale agreement dated 28.03.2025, pertains to title and transfer of property, a matter squarely falling within the domain of civil law. The complainant had available legal remedies such as cancellation of document or initiation of proceedings which he admittedly did not resort to. 20. It is an undisputed fact that accused Nos. 3 and 4 were neither signatories to the loan documents nor beneficiaries of the alleged transaction. Except for the bald assertion in the FIR that all accused persons “colluded together”, there is no specific allegation attributing any overt act to these petitioners. Prima facie, in the complaint there are no such allegations as to how accused Nos.3 and 4 participated, conspired, or induced the complainant to sell the alleged property. 21. On a perusal of the complaint, this Court finds that the entire case against accused Nos. 3 and 4 is founded on the omnibus allegations. They have neither received any pecuniary gain nor have they executed any document relating to the impugned transaction. There are no materials to demonstrate that these petitioners either induced the complainant, misrepresented any fact, benefitted from the alleged transaction, or had any mens rea to commit the alleged offences. They are neither public servants nor beneficiaries of the alleged transaction. 22. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, this Court is empowered to interdict proceedings where the complaint does not disclose any offence or where the proceedings manifestly appear to be malafide or an abuse of process. The Court is aware that the power to quash criminal proceedings is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution so as not to stifle genuine prosecutions. The Court is aware that the power to quash criminal proceedings is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution so as not to stifle genuine prosecutions. Nonetheless, where the allegations, if taken at face value is shown to be a cloak for civil disputes, or where there is credible evidence of malafide intent, the inherent power of the Court must be invoked to prevent misuse of criminal process. 23. The allegations in the present case, as narrated by the complainant, primarily relate to a civil dispute regarding loan, mortgage, and alleged property transfer, where the remedy lies before the civil court. The complainant admittedly had executed a lease agreement, borrowed funds, and entered into negotiations regarding sale of property much prior to the alleged police involvement. These admitted transactions dilute the allegation of extortion by public servants and create serious doubt whether the criminal law is being misused as a tool of retaliation in a pre-existing civil dispute. 24. There are no recoveries of bribe money, no trap indicating demand or acceptance, no transfer of benefit to the petitioners, and no public duty pending with the accused, which could have formed the quid pro quo for corrupt inducement. The trap mahazar records only property documents, whose validity and enforceability fall exclusively within civil adjudication. Further, the alleged “threat” or “pressure” is neither corroborated by any independent witness nor supported by any admissible electronic evidence demonstrating coercion by public servants in the discharge of official functions. 25. The subsequent sale of the same property by the complainant himself, on 31.07.2025, to a third party (Sri Chennakeshava Murthy) for Rs.2,05,00,000/– strongly undermines the complaint’s own claim that the market value was Rs.3.50 crores. This conduct of the complainant — voluntarily selling the property to the amount alleged as coercively obtained — casts serious doubt on the veracity of the claim that the property was grabbed by accused persons under compulsion and as a bribe. 26. This Court finds on perusal of the complaint that the complainant and his wife were accused in Crime No.55/2024 of Annapoorneshwari Nagar Police Station. The wife of the complainant was arrested and later granted bail on 15.02.2024, and thereafter terminated from service as District Child Protection Officer, Tumakuru on 13.03.2024. The complainant and his wife have also obtained stay of those proceedings in Crl.P.No.3515/2024. The wife of the complainant was arrested and later granted bail on 15.02.2024, and thereafter terminated from service as District Child Protection Officer, Tumakuru on 13.03.2024. The complainant and his wife have also obtained stay of those proceedings in Crl.P.No.3515/2024. These undisputed facts indicate that there was ongoing hostility between the complainant accused Nos.1, 2 and 5. When prior criminal proceedings exist and the accused therein lodged subsequent complaints against police officers, courts must carefully scrutinize whether the later complaint is motivated by vengeance or to pressurize authorities. In the present case, the temporal proximity, history of litigation, and subsequent conduct collectively indicate strong circumstances of malafide. 27. The Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, has held that, where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge such crimes should not be permitted to be continued. 28. Upon careful examination of the complaint and materials placed on record, it is apparent that the allegations predominantly revolve around a property transaction and lease/loan dispute, which, at best, disclose a civil dispute that has been given a criminal color. The criminal law cannot be permitted to be used as a tool for personal vendetta or to settle civil disputes arising out of property transactions. Permitting prosecution to continue would therefore amount to abuse of process of law. The complaint does not contain any specific, definite, or unambiguous allegation as to demand or acceptance of illegal gratification in connection with any official act or misuse of their official position, which is a sine qua non for attracting the offences alleged in the FIR. Hence, the allegations with regard to any other offences under a different statute are not within the domain of the respondent Lokayukta police to investigate. 29. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law, warranting interference under Section 528 BNSS. Hence, the following: ORDER i. Petitions are allowed. ii. 29. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law, warranting interference under Section 528 BNSS. Hence, the following: ORDER i. Petitions are allowed. ii. The FIR registered in Crime No.17/2025 by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station, Bengaluru City and all consequential proceedings pending before the XXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru, insofar as they relate to the petitioners, are quashed.