1. All these petitions are under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the grounds urged by the respective petitioners being common and the contentions put forward by the learned Counsel for the parties also being common to these petitions, these petitions are disposed of by this common order.

2. At the outset, it has to be mentioned that, this Court had granted interim stay of the proceedings and I.A. to vacate stay is also filed by the respondent-Lokayukta in all these petitions and therefore this Court heard learned Counsel Sri M.S. Bhagwat for the petitioners and Smt. T.M. Gayathri for the respondent-Lokayukta on the merits of these petitions.

3. The facts common to all these petitions are that, cases were registered against the respective petitioners herein under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. by the Lokayukta Police in respect of the offence under Sections 8 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short). FIRs came to be registered in all but one case on the basis of the panchanama drawn on 18-5-2012. Insofar as Cri.P.No.2142 of 2012 is concerned, the FIR was registered on 25-2-2012 based on the mahazar drawn on the previous day i.e. on 24-2-2012.

4. The further undisputed facts common to all these petitions are that, except the FIR, which is produced at Annexure-A to these petitions, no complaint was lodged by any person nor was there any complaint by the very Police Officer who registered the case. Though, according to the learned Counsel for the Lokayukta, the concerned Police Officer went to the office of the Sub-Registrar and in the presence of the panchas, the panchanama was drawn, yet there was no information given by anyone with the concerned Police Officer nor is there any material placed to show that on the basis of the credible information, the Police Officer concerned visited the office of the Sub-Registrar and drawn the panchananma.

5. Yet another fact with regard to which no disputed is there between the parties is that, in all these cases the petitioners were arrested and brought to the police station and only thereafter, cases came to be registered against all of them. With the aforesaid facts in common, the contentions put forward by the learned Counsel for the petitioners requires to be taken note of at this juncture.

6. The first of the grounds put forward by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that, without there being the complaint and without there being any information, the concerned Police Officer, without even registering the cases as required under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., which is a mandatory provision, has proceeded to the spot viz., towards the office of the Sub-Registrars and panchanamas were drawn. This procedure followed is contrary to the statutory provisions as contained in the Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the investigation taken up without being preceded by a complaint or a case being registered, therefore, becomes illegal.

7. Relying on several judgments of the Supreme Court, it is argued that once an information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before the Police Officer in charge of a police station, the Police Officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information and only thereafter he can proceed with the investigation. As this mandatory requirement of law is not followed in the instant cases, the F.I.Rs. are liable to be quashed on the said ground alone.

8. It is then argued that, even the F.I.Rs that are registered against the petitioners mention nothing about any allegations whatsoever against the petitioners and all that the F.I.Rs. mention is that a case is registered in respect of the offences under Sections 8 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. Though the endorsements in the F.I.Rs also mention that the F.I.Rs were received with the original complaints, no complaint whatsoever is