2021 Supreme(SC) 616

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
KAVITHA LANKESH – APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2021 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRIMINAL) NO._________ OF 2021) (@ DIARY NO.13309 OF 2021) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2021 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRIMINAL) NO. 5387 OF 2021)
Decided on : 21-10-2021.

IMPORTANT POINT
At stage of granting prior approval under Section 24(1)(a) of Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000, competent authority is not required to wade through material placed by Investigating Agency before him along with proposal for grant of prior approval to ascertain specific role of each accused – Competent authority has to focus essentially on factum whether information/material reveals commission of a crime which is an organized crime committed by organized crime syndicate.

Headnote:

(A) Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 – Sections 3 and 24(1)(a) – Gauri Lankesh murder case – Approval for investigation – Tangible material was placed before Commissioner regarding information about commission of an organized crime by members of organized crime syndicate, which warranted grant of prior approval to invoke Section 3 of 2000 Act – This prior approval was assailed before High Court by way of writ petition filed much after appropriate authority had already accorded sanction and competent court had taken cognizance of that crime – What needed to be enquired into by appropriate authority (in present case, Commissioner of Police) is: whether factum of commission of offence of organized crime by an organized crime syndicate can be culled out from material placed before him for grant of prior approval – Only after registration of FIR, investigation for concerned offence would proceed in which details about specific role and identity of persons involved in such offence can be unravelled and referred to in charge-sheet to be filed before competent Court – Original FIR registered in present case was for an ordinary crime of murder against unknown persons – At relevant time, material regarding offence having been committed by an organized crime syndicate was not known – That information came to fore only after investigation of offence by SIT, as has been mentioned in report submitted to Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City for seeking his prior approval to invoke Section 3 of 2000 Act – Prior approval was not for registering crime against individual offenders as such, but for recording of information regarding commission of an offence of organized crime under 2000 Act – Specific role of concerned accused is not required to be and is not so mentioned in stated prior approval – That aspect would be unravelled during investigation, after registration of offence of organized crime – High Court examined the matter by applying erroneous scale – Observations made by High Court in impugned judgment clearly reveal that it has glossed over core and tangible facts – Fact that the Investigating Agency was unable to collect material during investigation against writ petitioner for offence under Section 3(1) of 2000 Act, does not mean that information regarding commission of a crime by him within meaning of Section 3(2), 3(3) or 3(4) of 2000 Act cannot be recorded and investigated against him as being a member of organized crime syndicate and/or having played role of an abettor. (Paras 15, 20, 21 and 23)

(B) Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 – Section 24(1)(a) – Gauri Lankesh murder case – Approval for investigation – At stage of granting prior approval under Section 24(1)(a) of 2000 Act, competent authority is not required to wade through material placed by Investigating Agency before him along with proposal for grant of prior approval to ascertain specific role of each accused – Competent authority has to focus essentially on factum whether information/material reveals commission of a crime which is an organized crime committed by organized crime syndicate – In that, prior approval is qua offence and not offender as such – As long as incidents referred to in earlier crimes are committed by a group of persons and one common individual was involved in all incidents, offence under 2000 Act can be invoked – At stage of taking cognizance, competent Court takes cognizance of offence and not offender – This analogy applies even at stage of grant of prior approval for invocation of provisions of 2000 Act – Prior sanction under Section 24(2), however, may require enquiry into specific role of offender in commission of organized crime – If role of offender is merely that of a facilitator or of an abettor as referred to in Section 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) or 3(5), requirement of named person being involved in more than two charge-sheets registered against him in past is not relevant – Regardless of that, he can be proceeded under 2000 Act, if material collected by Investigating Agency reveals that he had nexus with accused who is a member of organized crime syndicate or such nexus is related to offence in nature of organized crime – He need not be a person who had direct role in commission of an organized crime as such – Impugned judgment and order of High Court set aside – Private respondent may pursue other remedies as may be available to him and permissible in law. (Paras 26, 28, 29 and 30)

Facts of the case:

Present appeals emanate from the judgment and order dated 22.04.2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No.9717 of 2019 (GMRES), whereby the High Court partly allowed the writ petition and quashed the order bearing No.CRM(1)/KCOCA/01/2018 dated 14.08.2018 issued by Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City according prior approval to invoke offences under Section 3 of the Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000 against Mohan Nayak. N (private respondent herein) being crime registered with Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station as FIR No.221/2017 dated 05.09.2017 and to enquire into the same. Moot question to be answered in these appeals is about purport of Section 24 of the 2000 Act.

Findings of Court:

Rejection of writ petition filed by the private respondent Mohan Nayak. N will not come in his way in pursuing other remedies as may be available to him and permissible in law. This judgment is limited to the consideration of question whether prior approval dated 14.08.2018 granted by Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City, in connection with offence registered as Crime No.221/2017, is valid or otherwise.

Result : Appeals allowed.