Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has denied a petition filed by State Information Commissioner Ravindra Gurunath Dhakappa, challenging the case filed against him by the Lokayukta police. The case alleges that Dhakappa demanded a bribe in exchange for settling applications under the Right to Information Act.

Dhakappa had approached the High Court, seeking to quash the FIR (First Information Report) filed against him by the Lokayukta police and the subsequent investigation. The petition was heard by Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, who ruled that the evidence, including audio recordings and other preliminary evidence of corruption, was sufficient to warrant further investigation.

The court also noted that despite the complainants mistakenly transferring the money, they immediately reversed the transaction. This, however, did not hinder the investigation process. The bench emphasized that the investigation into the corruption allegations must proceed and there would be no obstruction to the legal proceedings.

Background of the Case

The case revolves around Ravindra Dhakappa, who was serving as the Information Commissioner in the Kalaburagi Bench of the Karnataka Information Commission. The accused allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs3 lakh from journalist Saibanna Benkanhalli, who had filed an RTI application seeking the resolution of a grievance. The complaint was filed on March 27, and Dhakappa allegedly insisted on the bribe in exchange for resolving the issues raised by the complainant.

According to the allegations, Benkanhalli transferred Rs1 lakh of the Rs3 lakh demand to the account of Sai Harsha via UPI. Following this, the Lokayukta police registered a case and initiated an investigation. Dhakappa, in his petition to the High Court, claimed that the transaction was reversed within three minutes once the complainant realized the money had been transferred by mistake. He argued that there was no connection between him and his associates in the transaction.

Dhakappa’s lawyers further stated that the audio recording mentioned in the case was obtained before the FIR was filed. The complainant, they claimed, failed to hand over the audio evidence before filing the complaint.

They argued that the authenticity of the complainant’s claims was questionable, and therefore, the case should be dismissed.

The Lokayukta lawyers countered that multiple rounds of conversations had taken place between the complainant and the petitioner. Notably, a call of about 9 minutes had occurred, during which Rs1 lakh was discussed. They argued that, based on the evidence available, the investigation should proceed without obstruction.