Back
2015 Supreme(Kar) 518
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.N. Phaneendra, J.
B. Sampathkumar and Ors – Appellants
Vs.
The State of Karnataka and Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Petition Nos. 4848, 5107, 5143/2014 and Writ Petition No. 38491/2014
Decided On : 17.03.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Prakash Timmanna Hebbar, Adv.
For the Respondents: Venkatesh P. Dalwai, Spl. P.P.
Headnote:CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - Sections 2(d), 154: [K.N. Phaneendra, J] FIR and Complaint - FIR under Section 154 and complaint under Section 2(d) cannot be treated at par with each other.
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - Sections 154: [K.N. Phaneendra, J] Registration of FIR - Preliminary enquiry before registering FIR whether necessary? - Held, If the FIR itself is clear and unambiguous, which discloses commission of a cognizable offence, no preliminary enquiry is required. But when it is doubtful or the FIR does not disclose any cognizable offence, then only the discretion vests with the investigating officer to conduct preliminary enquiry in order to confirm whether any cognizable offence is committed and to ascertain whether any investigation into any cognizable offence is absolutely necessary. Merely because some preliminary enquiry is required, it does not mean to say that the Police Officer should not register a case, it is his bounden duty to register a case when there are certain materials available in the FIR if broadly accepted, discloses commission of any cognizable offence.
It is also clearly understood that in what type of matters the preliminary enquiry has to be conducted, whether preliminary enquiry is absolutely necessary or not is purely the discretion of the investigating officer. Such a discretionary power should not be unreasonably interfered by the courts while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. because varieties of men have got varieties of perceptions of law and facts. It all depends upon the intelligence, understanding capacity, experience of the investigating officer in taking such decision, in a given case, whether preliminary enquiry is required in such a case or not. Even admitting for a moment that without a preliminary enquiry, a Criminal case is registered wherein preliminary enquiry would have been done, but that itself is not sufficient to quash the proceedings because the investigating officer while taking a decision to register a case, on going through the contents of the FIR must have exercised the discretion and found that the information is sufficient to attract a cognizable offence so that he can proceed with the investigation. Therefore, merely because preliminary enquiry has not been conducted, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed.
Registration of FIR by police should not be only on basis of news report but it should be based on some other sufficient knowledge about commission of offence.
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - Section 482: [K.N. Phaneendra, J] Quashing of FIR - Alleged illegal transfer of Government land by petitioners who were Government servants - FIR filed against petitioners - Petitioners produced documents to show that they acted in accordance with directions of Governkment and higher ups - Said documents are yet to be considered by investigating agency - Documents creating doubt regarding complicity of petitioners but not conclusively establishing their innocence - Investigating agency has to ascertain whether act of Officers is only an irregularity or illegality which can only be corrected by way of appeal or by way of revision or whether they have committed offence - Whether Section 196 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act attracted or not - Whether they are entitled to benefit of provisions under said Act can be ascertained only after full fledged investigation - Thus, plea that alleged acts of petitioners virtually amenable to appeals and revisions is not sufficient to quash entire proceedings against them. Held, It cannot be the basis for quashing proceedings against petitioners.
Merely because some irregularity is there in registering the case, it cannot be said that it is an illegality and that cannot be a ground to quash entire proceedings.
Allegations of mala fides against complainant or investigating agency is of no consequence at initial stages and cannot itself be a foundation for quashing of proceedings.
Plea that contents of complaint are vague and not disclosing cognizable offence - Not tenable at the stage - Not a ground for quashing of proceedings.
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA ACT, 1984 - Sections 7, 8, 9: [K.N. Phaneendra, J] Powers of Lokayukta Police - FIR against Government officers for indulging themselves in grabbing Government land for their wrongful gain - Case registered under Prevention of Corruption Act coupled with other consequential offence under other Acts - Held, It can definitely be investigated by Lokayukta Police. Sections 7, 8, 9 are not applicable.
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - Section 19: [K.N. Phaneendra, J] Sanction for prosecution - Held, It is not necessary for registering case under Section 154, Cr. P. C. by police against public servant.
K.N. Phaneendra, J.
1. The petitioners who have worked as Tahsildars at Devanahalli for different periods have approached this Court seeking quashing of the entire investigation in Crime No. 18/2014 on the file of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Police, Bangalore Rural District which was initiated against all of them u/s. 13(1)(c) and (d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also u/s. 120(B), 465, 468, 471, 420 of IPC and also u/s. 192A of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
2. Before adverting to the grounds urged before this Court for quashing of the entire investigation in the above said cases, it is just and necessary to have a brief factual matrix of the cases. One Mr. M.J. Dayanand, Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore lodged an FIR on 30.7.2014, wherein it is alleged that for the purpose of conducting phodi work of survey Numbers of Government lands, previous permission of the Deputy Commissioner and also the Department of Land Records and Land Revenue is absolutely necessary. The complainant has read in the newspaper item with regard to the land grabbing at Devanahalli. On careful perusal he found that the persons by name Sri L.C. Nagaraj, Asha Parveen, Manyappagowda and Sampathkumar who were working as Tahsildars, Devanahalli at different periods and during their tenure, they have conducted Phodi Durast work of Government lands situated at Devanahalli Taluk, particularly in the villages by name Raisandra, Vishwanathapura, Hosahalh, Chikkanahalli, Hegganahalli, Koramangala and Beerasandra, by doing illegal Phodi and Durast work, they have illegally created documents like RTC and Mutation, thereafter alienated and transferred the said lands in favour of private persons. It is specifically stated that the above said Tahsildars have colluded with the private persons and hatched conspiracy in order to grab the Government land and they have created the documents for their personal benefit. Instead of protecting the Government lands, they have illegally and capriciously abused their position as public servants cheated the Government and thereby they have committed the offences. On the basis of the above said complaint, the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha, directed Lokayukta police Bangalore Rural District, to register a case and investigate the matter. Accordingly, a case was registered and investigation is started for the offences as noted above.
3. Against the initiation of the above said criminal proceedings and investigation, the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the proceedings on several grounds.
4. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 5143/2014 Sri B. Sampathkumar was working as Tahsildar, Devanahalli for the period from 10.5.2007 to 30.2.2009 and he retired from service on 29.02.2012.
5. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 4848/2014 Sri D.C. Mariyapa Gowda was working as Tahsildar, Devanahalli for the period from 28.04.2005 to 31.03.2006 and he retired from service on 31.3.2006.
6. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 5107/2014 Smt. S.M. Asha Parveen, worked as Tahsildar, Devanahalli for the period fern 30.01.2009 to 15.10.2010.
7. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 38491/2014, Sri L.C. Nagaraj, claimed that he was working as Tahsildar, Devanahalli and Bangalore Rural District during the period from 22.02.2010 to 23.01.2013. Presently, he is working as Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Division.
8. From the above said facts, there is no dispute that the petitioners worked as Tahsildars at Devanahalli for the different periods. But, a stand is taken by the petitioners in Crl. Petition Nos. 4848/2014 and 5143/2014 that they were already retired from service and they claim that their case stand on different footing.
9. I have heard the detailed lengthy arguments of the learned senior counsels appearing for the parties in all the above said cases in support of the grounds urged in the petitions. Almost common ground
