Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Extortion Case Against Lawyer Accused Of Posing As Policeman, Seeking ₹5 Lakh Bribe

The single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, sitting at Dharwad, noted that the allegations in the Crime registered at Moka Police Station reveal prima facie elements of the offence punishable under Section 308(2) [Extortion] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

“…contents of the complaint do attract Section 308 of BNS. The reason is the contents of the complaint would indicate that, there was a demand by the petitioners who made a claim that they belong to the Police Department. It is not necessary that the petitioners should be wearing the police uniform at the time when they made the demand. Whether the demand was really made or whether the petitioners were present at the time of the alleged incident, whether the complainant paid ₹2,00,000/- and whether the petitioners refused ₹2,00,000/- are all the matters which require investigation….”, the court said.

A 32-year-old lawyer has been arrayed as the prime accused in the aforesaid FIR registered upon a complaint made by a labourer. The labourer alleged that the petitioners, including the lawyer, projected themselves as members of a squad from the Police Department, stopped the complainant's vehicle, and demanded Rs 5 lakhs as a bribe.

According to the complaint, the labourer offered to pay Rs 2 lakhs which was not satisfactory to the alleged scamsters. They asked the labourer to pay Rs 3 lakhs; when the labourer said that he could only pay 2 lakhs, it was refused by the petitioners as per the FIR.

Adv. U.G Kuttimani, the petitioners' counsel submitted that even according to the complaint, the petitioners were not in uniform or in a police vehicle, they did not disclose which police station they belonged to, and therefore they did not instil any fear in the complainant's mind. Hence, the ingredients of Section 308 of BNS were not attracted as per the petitioners.

However, the court examined the complainant's version and noted as below:

“…it cannot be a reason to quash the proceedings on the premise that there was no threat on the complainant by the petitioners. The very fact that the complainant has stated that, he made a request to accept only ₹2,00,000/-, prima facie gives an indication that the complainant believed that the petitioners are from the Police Department… It is also relevant to notice that the complaint has allegedly paid ₹2,00,000/- and the petitioners allegedly refused to accept ₹2,00,000/- and they demanded ₹3,00,000/-…”, the court noted in the order.

Relying on Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra, particularly paragraph 23(xv) of the said judgment, the court reasoned that the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, since the court is not required to examine the merits of the allegations at this stage when the investigation is ongoing.

“…As can be seen from the contents of the complaint, one can make out a prima facie case that the complainant was put in fear as there was a threat to lodge a police complaint against the complainant”, the court concluded while rejecting the plea.

Case Title: Gadilinga S/o Dodda Basappa v. State of Karnataka & Sharabhayya B

Case No: Criminal Petition No. 101461 of 2026 (482(CrPC)/528(BNSS))

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 262

Appearances: For Petitioner: U.G. Kattimani, Advocate

For Respondent-State: Girija S. Hiremath, HCGP

ClickHere To Read/ Download Order