The Karnataka High Court has observed that there was no allegation that a seized sum of Rs 4.8 crore during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections was either meant to influence voters or belonged to BJP MP Dr K Sudhakar. The order had been previously pronounced by a bench consisting of Justice M I Arun on September 16, and has recently been made publicly available.
As previously reported by The Indian Express, a Static Surveillance Team member, Dasharath Kumbar, had filed a complaint stating that on April 25, 2024, he had received a message from Model Code of Conduct officer Munish Moudgil stating that a sum of Rs 10 crore had been kept in a particular place. Later, when Income Tax officials raided the home of a resident of Madavara village, they found a sum of Rs 4.8 crore, which had allegedly been kept there for distribution to voters.
Moudgil, an IAS officer, had also filed a complaint regarding messages allegedly received from Sudhakar. In the wake of these complaints, the Madanayakanahalli police registered a case under sections 171E (bribery), 171F (undue influence), 171B (bribery to exercise electoral right), and 171C (undue influence at elections) of the Indian Penal Code. The chargesheet against Sudhakar contained the last two provisions.
Sudhakar argued before the high court that even in the event that the allegations made in the FIR and charge sheet were assumed to be true, he would not be guilty under the provisions that he was charged with.
The court observed that the sole allegation against Sudhakar was sending WhatsApp messages bearing the text “Madhavara Govindappa IT Team” and “Pls help I will be very grateful to you. Regards.”
The high court, thereafter, said that the arguments stated in the charge sheet against Sudhakar did not satisfy the requirements of the IPC sections dealing with bribery. It observed, “The averments made in the complaint, FIR and the chargesheet reveal that there was an income tax raid on the house of accused no. 2 (the Madavara resident) and the petitioner has requested an IAS officer (CW2) to help accused no. 2. There is no other allegation made against the petitioner that the money of Rs 4.8 crore seized in the house of accused no.2 was meant to be used for the elections of the petitioner or to give the same as a bribe to somebody else on behalf of the petitioner.”
Having made these observations, the court quashed criminal proceedings against Sudhakar.