Court finds no prima facie case of demand or acceptance of bribe; questions applicability of Prevention of Corruption Act provisions
The Karnataka High Court has stayed further investigation in an FIR against four persons accused of attempting to bribe Odisha Congress MLAs during the March 2026 Rajya Sabha elections.
The Court observed that the FIR did not prima facie disclose key ingredients of bribery offences.
The case concerns allegations that the accused tried to influence Odisha Congress MLAs to cross-vote in favour of a BJP candidate.
Ashok Kumar Das, Deputy Leader of the Congress Party in Odisha, filed the complaint.
Based on his complaint, police registered an FIR under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The FIR also invoked Sections 7A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The petitioners include a lawyer, a former real estate executive and two businessmen.
They approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR.
They argued that the complainant had misconstrued the allegations and exaggerated them into a cognisable offence.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna heard the matter in Mr. Birendra Prasad & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., Criminal Petition No. 6091 of 2026.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the case did not involve any “demand” or “acceptance” of illegal gratification.
They submitted that these elements are essential to attract Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Court noted that the FIR did not show any prima facie material indicating demand or acceptance of a bribe.
It said such material is necessary to invoke the relevant provisions under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Court observed that Section 7A would not apply without the basic elements of demand or acceptance.
It further noted that the allegation mainly concerned an alleged attempt to influence voting during elections.
However, the Court said such an allegation may not automatically amount to a cognisable offence.
The Bench also noted that police had already dropped Section 140(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which relates to kidnapping.
After that, only non-cognisable offences remained in the case.
The Court also examined the allegation of “undue influence at elections” under Section 171C IPC, as applicable.
It observed that the FIR did not prima facie satisfy the ingredients of that offence either.
In view of these findings, the Karnataka High Court stayed further investigation in the case.
The stay will continue until the State places the complete records before the Court.
The matter will be heard next on June 4, 2026.
