Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY
WRIT PETITION No.18301 OF 2015 c/w. WRIT PETITION No.18299 OF 2015
IN WRIT PETITION No.18301 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
Sri. T. Nataraj S/o Late H. Thathappa Aged about 56 years Joint Director of Town and Country Planning(N) B.B.M.P. N.R. Square Bangalore – 560 002 ..Petitioner (By Sri. C.H. Jadhav Senior Counsel for Sri. Satish M. Doddamani, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Vikas Soudha Bangalore-560 001.
The Karnataka Lokayukta Office of Lokayukta M.S. Building, Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru - 560 001. Represented by its Registrar
W.P.No.18301/2015 c/w. W.P.No.18299/2015 2
The Deputy Superintendent of Police Karnataka Lokayukta Bangalore City Division, Bengaluru- 560 001.
The Inspector of Police Karnataka Lokayukta Bangalore City Division, Bengaluru- 560 001.
...Respondents
(By Sri. P. Thejesh, High Court Govt. Pleader for R1; Sri. B.S. Prasad, Advocate for R2 to R4)
**** This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying to quash the FIR dated 06-04-2015 registered in Crime No. 20/2015 filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Bangalore, vide Annexure A; declare that the registration of the FIR in Crime No.20/2015 is in violation of Article 21(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; and to pass any other appropriate order or direction as this Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
IN WRIT PETITION No.18299 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
Sri. Thippeswamy S/o. N.P. Krishna Naik Aged about 45 years Additional Director of Town and Country Planning B.B.M.P. N.R. Square Bangalore – 560 002. ..Petitioner (By Sri. C.H. Jadhav Senior Counsel for Sri. Satish M. Doddamani, Advocate)
W.P.No.18301/2015 c/w. W.P.No.18299/2015 3
AND:
The State of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Vikas Soudha Bangalore-560 001.
The Karnataka Lokayukta Office of Lokayukta M.S. Building, Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru - 560 001. Represented by its Registrar
The Deputy Superintendent of Police Karnataka Lokayukta Bangalore City Division, Bengaluru- 560 001.
The Inspector of Police Karnataka Lokayukta Bangalore City Division, Bengaluru- 560 001.
...Respondents
(By Sri. P. Thejesh, High Court Govt. Pleader for R-1; Sri. B.S. Prasad, Advocate for R-2 to R-4)
**** This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying to quash the FIR dated 06-04-2015 registered in Crime No.20/2015 filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Bangalore, vide Annexure A; declare that the registration of the FIR in Crime No.20/2015 is in violation of Article 21(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; and to pass any other appropriate order or direction as this Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
W.P.No.18301/2015 c/w. W.P.No.18299/2015 4
These Writ Petitions having been heard through physical hearing/video conferencing hearing and reserved on 23-04-2021, coming on for pronouncement of Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R
In both these writ petitions, the petitioners who are accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively in Crime No.20/2015, on the file of the third respondent – Karnataka Lokayukta, for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after for brevity referred to as “the P.C. Act”), have sought for quashing of the FIR in Crime No.20/2015 registered against them and also for a declaration, declaring that the registration of the FIR in Crime No.20/2015 is in violation of Article 21(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner in Writ Petition No.18301/2015, as on the date of the filing of the writ petition, was the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the BBMP”) and the petitioner in Writ Petition No.18299/2015
W.P.No.18301/2015 c/w. W.P.No.18299/2015 5
was also working in the very same BBMP on deputation as an Additional Director of Town and Country Planning Department.
It is the case of the respondent – Karnataka Lokayukta that, on 24-03-2015, the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore City, received a written complaint shown to have been written by one Sri. Gangadharaiah, alleging that, both the petitioners working in the BBMP office have been demanding and collecting bribe from the general public to do their official work in their Section, as such, they have accumulated lakhs of rupees. It was further stated in the complaint that, they have also been contacting the general public who visited their office for the official work and demanding and collecting bribe. Apart from the same, they also carry the office files to their home and dispose them at their home. In the process, they have accumulated huge valuable property in the form of buildings and land both in their names and also in benami names.
The said complaint was referred to a Police Inspector by name Sri. Puttaswamy, by the Superintendent of Police to verify
W.P.No.18301/2015 c/w. W.P.No.18299/2015 6
and report within ten days. Accordingly the said Inspector is said to have conducted a discreet enquiry in the matter and submitted his report in writing stating that, his discreet enquiry revealed that, both the petitioners herein while discharging their official duties in BBMP have been collecting bribe from several of the general public approaching them for the purpose of sanction of plan, fitness certificate, Occupancy certificate, etc., and with respect to the building construction also, they are collecting huge amount as bribe from the general public and they have fixed certain rates also payable to them by the general public before getting their work done. Stating so, the Police Inspector has also stated that, the same has obstructed the general public work in the BBMP and the Institution is also suffering loss of crores of rupees, as such, suitable action may be taken against the present petitioners and other officials working in the said Section.
The Superintendent of Police of the Karnataka Lokayukta, upon receipt of the said report, referred the same to the Deputy Superintendent of Police–I, Karnataka Lokayukta, with a direction to him to register a case under Section 7,
W.P.No.18301/2015 c/w. W.P.No.18299/2015 7
13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act against the concerned officials mentioned in the report and to take up the investigation of the case. Accordingly, on 06-04-2015, the said report submitted by the Police Inspector was registered as a case in Crime No.20/2015, for the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(a) and 13 (2) of the P.C. Act against the present petitioners, arraigning them as accused Nos. 1 and 2, and in the same FIR, accused No.3 is also shown as the other official in the Section. It is the said FIR in Crime No.20/2015, the petitioners have sought for quashing and to declare that the same is in violation of Article 21(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
The respondent No.1 – State is being represented by the learned High Court Government Pleader and respondents No.2 to 4 – Karnataka Lokayukta are being represented by their learned counsel.
Heard the arguments of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for Karnataka Lokayukta, who are appearing through Video Conference and the arguments
W.P.No.18301/2015 c/w. W.P.No.18299/2015 8
of the learned High Court Government Pleader who is appearing physically in the Court.
Perused the materials placed before this Court.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in his argument submitted that, the information given to the respondent – Lokayukta Police was by a person without disclosing his identity, as such, the respondent - Lokayukta Police should not have entertained the said information and proceeded further. He also submitted that, the complaint as in the FIR does not make out a prima facie cognizable case, since the complaint is vague, bald and no specific allegations are made against the petitioners in the FIR.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, even after taking the contents of the FIR prima facie as acceptable, still, no prudent person can come to a conclusion that, there is a prima facie case, warranting any further proceedings including investigation in the matter.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that, the alleged complaint does not make out a prima facie case
W.P.No.18301/2015 c/w. W.P.No.18299/2015 9
for the alleged offences. He further submitted that, the informant – Mr. Gangadharaiah has not disclosed his identity anywhere in the information given by him, as such, the complaint is an anonymous and pseudonymous complaint, and entertaining such a complaint would harm the morale of the public servant.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that, the Central Vigilance Commission Regulation also prescribes that, any such anonymous and pseudonymous complaints have to be filed without taking any further action upon them, otherwise, it would bring down the morale of the public servant.
With this and also referring to three reported judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in his support, the learned Senior Counsel prayed for allowing both these writ petitions.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Lokayukta Police, in his argument, submitted that, holding of a preliminary enquiry before registering the FIR is not barred under the law, rather, it is accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several of its judgments including its judgment in the
W.P.No.18301/2015 c/w. W.P.No.18299/2015 10
case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 1. He further submitted that, the investigation has been commenced in this matter, however, the same came to be stopped by virtue of an interim order of stay passed by this Court. Still, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has collected several incriminating materials and also secured several documents, revealing several acts of irregularity. The BBMP Task Force, has also collected several incriminating materials against the petitioners. Further, the details of the accumulation of wealth is yet to be ascertained, as such, there is all the material to continue the investigation against the present petitioners. Thus, it is not a fit case where the FIR is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for respondent – Lokayukta Police further submitted that, the alleged Regulation of the Central Vigilance Commission is not applicable for the officials working in the BBMP.
The present writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the
W.P.No.18301/2015 c/w. W.P.No.18299/2015 11
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”)
Learned counsel for the respondent –Karnataka Lokayukta relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prakash P. Hinduja and another reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2612 and submitted that, an FIR can be quashed on three grounds mentioned in the said judgment. In the said judgment, at para-9, while discussing the scope of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to observe as below:- “9. Section 482, Cr.P.C. saves inherent powers of the High Court and such a power can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. the power can therefore be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings. the grounds on which the prosecution initiated against an accused an be quashed by the High Court in exercise of power conferred by Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been settled by a catena of decision of this Court rendered in R.P. Kapoor V.State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866; Madhu Limaye v.State, AIR 1978 SC 47; Delhi Municipality v.Ram Kishan, AIR 1983 SC 67; Raj Kapoor v/ State, AIR 1980 SC 258. The matter was examined in considerable detail in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 and after review of practically all the earlier decisions, the Court in para 108 of the Reports laid down the grounds on which power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings and basically they are (1) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case
W.P.No.18301/2015 c/w. W.P.No.18299/2015 12
against the accused, (2) where the uncontraverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused, (3) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure or the concerned Act to the institution and continuance of the proceedings. But this power has to be exercised in a rare case and with great circumspection...”
In the instant case, as observed above, originally, the information to the respondent – Lokayukta Police was given by one Sri. Gangadharaiah, alleging that the present petitioners are highly corrupt and that they are extracting money from the general public who approach them for their official works. In the said process, the petitioners have accumulated huge wealth illegally in the form of immovable properties. Thus, the information which was given to the respondent – Lokayukta Police on 24-03-2015 is shown to be in the name of one Sri. Gangadharaiah, but he has not disclosed his full details as to his address and other necessary particulars, if any, in his information. However, the said information was ordered to be inquired into by the Superintendent of Police of the Lokayukta. Accordingly, the fourth respondent appears to have conducted a discreet enquiry and has submitted a report to the
W.P.No.18301/2015 c/w. W.P.No.18299/2015 13
Superintendent of Police, on 06-04-2015, stating that his information has shown that the present petitioners and other officials working in the said Section of the BBMP are extracting money from the general public who approach them for their official favour and in the said process, the accused persons have collected lakhs of rupees and caused crores of rupees loss to the BBMP. The said report was registered as a complaint and an FIR was drawn based upon the said complaint. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the said complaint is bereft of any details, as it is very vague, bald and more importantly, it is an anonymous and a pseudonymous complaint, as such, the same deserves to be quashed. In his support, he relied upon three judgments, which are referred to herein below:-
[i] In the case of Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 592, where an official was transferred on the allegation of certain mala fide said to have been practiced by him during the dischargal of his duties in the Panchayat Office, a preliminary enquiry was also
W.P.No.18301/2015 c/w. W.P.No.18299/2015 14
held before passing an order of transfer and that during the preliminary enquiry, the alleged allegations are said to have been found to be untrue. The alleged complaint was by an anonymous person. Observing all these details, the Hon’ble Apex Court allowed the said appeal, however, with certain observations.
[ii] In the case of Income tax Appellate Tribunal Vs. V.K. Agarwal and another reported in (1999) 1 Supreme Court Cases 16, in a suo motu contempt proceeding against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Hon’ble Apex Court, inter alia, was pleased to observe that, the alleged complaint involved in the case before it was a pseudonymous complaint and that the concerned officials of the Department had ignored the Official Memorandum dated 29-09-1992 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, to all its Departments, giving the instructions about dealing with anonymous and pseudonymous complaints. It observed that, the officers had not only ignored the said Official Memorandum but also had violated the said memorandum. They have shown
W.P.No.18301/2015 c/w. W.P.No.18299/2015 15
that they were unaware of particular Rules, i.e. Rules 34 and 35 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1961.
With respect to Somesh Tiwari’s case (supra), it can be seen that, the facts and circumstances of the said case are entirely differs from the case on hand. In the said case, as observed above, after receiving the information, a preliminary enquiry was held and in the said preliminary enquiry, it was revealed that, the allegations made against the official was found to be untrue. It is only thereafter, the Hon’ble Apex Court proceeded to hold that, in such an event when the allegation was found to be untrue, transferring the appellant before it to a distant place was a harsh action taken by the officials, accordingly, it entertained the appeal.
In V.K. Agarwal’s case (supra) also, the matter was confined to the Income Tax Department, and more particularly, Rules 34 and 35 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1961. Further, it was also regarding the non-consideration of the Office Memorandum dated 29-09-1992 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, to
W.P.No.18301/2015 c/w. W.P.No.18299/2015 16
all its Departments regarding anonymous complaints. However, in the case on hand, it is not the case of the petitioners that, any such violation of the Regulation, circular or guidelines regarding dealing with anonymous or pseudonymous complaints are there governing the officials and the staff of the BBMP. More importantly, it can also be seen that, in the instant case, the original informant was one Sri. Gangadharaiah, who has given the information to the Lokayukta Police, making certain allegations against the petitioners, but the complaint, as such, which has culminated into an FIR has been lodged by the fourth respondent and it is his complaint dated 06-04-2015 which came to be registered under Crime No.20/2015 of the respondent – Lokayukta Police. The said complainant has disclosed his identity and in his official capacity, he has lodged a complaint. Therefore, it cannot be said that, the complainant at whose instance the FIR came to be registered was anonymous, though the informant to the complainant Department was anonymous.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also relied upon a judgment in the case of Eknath Gaude Vs. State of Goa
W.P.No.18301/2015 c/w. W.P.No.18299/2015 17
and others reported in 2017 (6) Mh.L.J. 892. In the said petition, the challenge was with respect to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner therein on the alleged charge of participation in the selection process of posting of his brother to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (RM). The Hon’ble Apex Court, noticing that the complaint upon which the investigation was proceeded was a pseudonymous complaint, observed that the guidelines issued by the Central Vigilance Commission that, no investigation to be commenced or action initiated on any anonymous complaint and that it must be filed, ought to have been considered by the respondent.
However, in addition to the said observation, it also noticed that, the enquiry initiated was with great delay of nearly five years and there was also non-supply of the documents to the petitioner within time. Considering all these aspects, it allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner before it. It is on the strength of these three judgments, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, contended that, even in the case on hand also, since the information given by an anonymous person without disclosing his details, the respondent – Lokayukta Police
W.P.No.18301/2015 c/w. W.P.No.18299/2015 18
ought to have filed the information without proceeding further in the matter. However, as observed above, the information given by Sri. Gangadharaiah to the respondent -Lokayukta Police was only an information but the complaint which can be called so was given by the respondent No.4 on 06-04-2015, duly disclosing his identity and in his official capacity. It is based on the said complaint which was registered as a crime, the FIR was filed in the Court. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners which are discussed above would not enure to his benefit.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that, as per Regulation 3(7)(iv) of the Central Vigilance Commission (Procedure for Dealing with Complaints and Procedure of Inquiry) Regulations, 2021 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “CVC Regulations, 2021”), the complaints which are anonymous or pseudonymous shall not be entertained by the Commission and those complaints are required to be summarily dismissed or filed.
No doubt, the said CVC Regulations, 2021 in Regulation No.3(7)(iv) mentions that, such anonymous or pseudonymous
W.P.No.18301/2015 c/w. W.P.No.18299/2015 19
complaints shall not be entertained, but the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners could not able to convince the Court that, the said Regulation applies to the present petitioners also, who are the officials working in the BBMP, which admittedly, is not any Central Government agency or a Corporation established by the Central Government. Even otherwise also, as observed above, any complaint which is lodged by the respondent No.4, which resulted in an FIR, is not an anonymous or pseudonymous complaint in the case. As such, the said CVC Regulations, 2021 also would not enure to the benefit of the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the respondent – Lokayukta, in his argument, relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. and others Vs. Tapan Kr. Singh reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 4140 and submitted that, the FIR need not disclose every or all the details since it is not an encyclopedia. As such, the information given by the complainant in his information which has resulted in the FIR is sufficient for further investigation.
In Tapan Kr. Singh’s case (supra) at para-20, the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to observe as below:-
W.P.No.18301/2015 c/w. W.P.No.18299/2015 20
“20. It is well settled that a First Information Report is not an encyclopedia, which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. An informant may lodge a report about the commission of an offence though he may not know the name of the victim or his assailant. He may not even know how the occurrence took place. A first informant need not necessarily be an eye witness so as to be able to disclose in great details all aspects of the offence committed. What is of significance is that the information given must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the information so lodged must provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. At this stage it is enough if the police officer on the basis of the information given suspects the commission of a cognizable offence, and not that he must be convinced or satisfied that a cognizable offence has been committed. If he has reasons to suspect on the basis of information received, that a cognizable offence may have been committed, he is bound to record the information and conduct an investigation. At this stage it is also not necessary for him to satisfy himself about the truthfulness of the information. It is only after a complete investigation that he may be able to report on the truthfulness or otherwise of the information. Similarly, even if the information does not furnish all the details, he must find out those details in the course of investigation and collect all the necessary evidence. The information given disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence only sets in motion the investigative machinery, with a view to collect all necessary evidence, and thereafter to take action in accordance with law. The true test is whether the information furnished provides a reason to suspect the commission of an offence, which the concerned police officer is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate. If it does, he has no option but to record the information and proceed to investigate the case either himself or depute any other competent officer to conduct the investigation. The question as to whether the report is true, whether it discloses full details regarding the manner of occurrence, whether the accused is named, and whether there is sufficient evidence to support the allegations are all matters which are alien to the consideration of the question whether the report discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Even if
W.P.No.18301/2015 c/w. W.P.No.18299/2015 21
the information does not give full details regarding these matters, the investigating officer is not absolved of his duty to investigate the case and discover the true facts, if he can....”
It is true that, an FIR need not disclose all or every detail of a crime. Suffice if it gives an information about the occurrence of a crime and convinces the complainant - Police that the matter requires an investigation, but, it does not absolve the complainant to give the basic details which prima facie and even if it is taken to be on their face value, makes out a case for investigation for the Investigating Officer. Thus, an information given which is very vague or bald, as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari’s case (supra), enables the Police to hold a preliminary enquiry in the matter and if they are satisfied that there are materials to proceed further for investigation, they can register an FIR and proceed for further investigation. There is no set format or the manner in which a preliminary enquiry is to be conducted. Any formal or informal collection of information, disclosing a cognizable offence to the satisfaction of the person recording the FIR is sufficient. The objective of a preliminary enquiry is only to ensure that a
W.P.No.18301/2015 c/w. W.P.No.18299/2015 22
criminal investigation process is not initiated on a frivolous and an untenable complaint.
In the instant case, as observed above, the information shown to have been given by one Sri. Gangadharaiah, except stating that, the petitioners are extorting money in the form of bribe from the general public who approach them, seeking official favour and in the process, have accumulated huge wealth, has not stated any further details as to, since how long and in what manner and from whom and in which particular incidents, the accused/petitioners are said to have demanded and accepted bribe. It also does not give the details as to the alleged accumulation of wealth said to have been amassed by the petitioners/accused. The same has led to holding of a discreet enquiry by the respondent No.4, at the direction of the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta. The report is in the form of a complaint, which culminated into an FIR.
A perusal of the said report also would go to show that, though the complainant who is a Police Inspector, has
W.P.No.18301/2015 c/w. W.P.No.18299/2015 23
stated that, he conducted a discreet enquiry upon the information given by Mr. Gangadharaiah, but he has only stated that, his discreet enquiry revealed that, the present petitioners, while discharging their duties in the Building Construction, plan approval, issuance of Occupancy Certificate, etc, in the office of the BBMP, are collecting huge sums of money from the general public who approached them for official favour, and thus have accumulated lakhs of rupees, does not give any details as to the alleged offences. It does not mention as to how many situations prima facie he could notice that such corrupt practice is said to have been practiced by them or since how long they have been doing it or in what manner, they are collecting the alleged bribe, etc. No basic details have been given by him. Further, he has also stated that, they have accumulated lakhs of rupees. Nothing is mentioned as to, how he arrived at a prima facie opinion that the petitioners have accumulated lakhs of rupees. No details of any bank account or holding of any liquid assets in cash or kind has been forthcoming or mentioned in the FIR filed by him. Further, the complainant has stated that they have caused loss of crores of rupees to the BBMP. Still, no details as to the basis
W.P.No.18301/2015 c/w. W.P.No.18299/2015 24
on which, he has come to the conclusion that, the petitioners have caused huge loss of crores of rupees to the Office of the BBMP is given in the complaint. As such, the said complaint is very vague, bald and does not even inspire any confidence to believe that the alleged allegations made in the complaint deserves any further investigation in the matter.
At this stage, it cannot be forgotten that, the said complainant is none else than a Police Inspector of the Lokayukta Department, as such, he was capable of collecting or accumulating certain basic information before making any such allegation against the petitioners, in support of his accusation/ allegations. It was also not difficult or impossible for him to secure some details and make his complaint clear in the allegations made against the petitioners, warranting investigation in the matter. However, a reading of the complaint in its entirety would go to show that, the said complaint in a mechanical manner, appears to have been written by the complainant, sitting across the table, without going anywhere, much less to the BBMP Office to hold any discreet enquiry.
W.P.No.18301/2015 c/w. W.P.No.18299/2015 25
In addition to the above, though the learned counsel for the respondent – Lokayukta Police, in his argument submitted that, during the course of the investigation, which was partly conducted, the Investigating Officer has collected large quantity of incriminating materials against the petitioners, but no details of any of the alleged incriminating materials have been placed or referred to by the learned counsel. If any investigation has been conducted already and several of the incrementing materials are said to have been collected, nothing had prevented the respondent – Lokayukta Police and the learned counsel for the respondent – Police to at least give details of some of the materials to convince the Court that there are certain materials to continue to investigate the matter. However, for the reasons best known to them, the respondent – Lokayukta Police have not evinced any interest in placing any of the details of the alleged incriminating materials said to have been collected during the course of investigation.
In addition to the above, it also cannot be ignored that, the FIR alleges the offence under Section 7, 13(1)(a) of the P.C. Act against the petitioners. However, except a vague
W.P.No.18301/2015 c/w. W.P.No.18299/2015 26
allegation about the petitioners demanding bribe from the general public and collecting money, as already observed above, no details as to any kind have been given by the complainant in his complaint. Further, when Section 13 (1) (a) of the P.C. Act, which deals about a criminal misconduct, says that, the offence would be complete where it is proved that the accused is shown to have dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated or otherwise converted for his own use any property entrusted to him or any property under his control as public servant that, the complaint in its reading in entirety fails to show any material making out a prima facie case to attract Section 13(1)(a) of the P.C.Act, amounting to criminal misconduct, by fraudulently or dishonestly misappropriating or converting any property entrusted to them by the petitioners. As such also, a reading of the complaint, at this stage, since does not make out a prima facie case, warranting investigation in the matter, I have no hesitation to hold that the continuation of the investigation against the present petitioners is nothing but putting them into unnecessary harassment and abuse of the process of the law. As such, the
W.P.No.18301/2015 c/w. W.P.No.18299/2015 27
best interest of justice warrants quashing of the FIR lodged against both the petitioners.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R
[i] Writ Petition No.18301/2015 and Writ Petition No.18299/2015 are allowed-in-part; [ii] The FIR dated 06-04-2015 registered in Crime No.20/2015 by the third respondent - Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru, vide Annexure A, is quashed, however confining the same against the present petitioners. I.A.No.1/2015 for stay filed in Writ Petition No.18299/2015 does not survive for consideration and accordingly stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE
BMV*