2015 Supreme(Kar) 699

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (KALABURAGI BENCH)
A.V. Chandrashekara, J.
Sharanappa – Appellant
Vs.
State of Karnataka – Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 200315/2015
Decided On: 13.08.2015

Headnote:CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - Section 2(h): [A. V. Chandrashekara, J] Investigation - Held, Vigilance Cell of High Court cannot be termed as police station. As such the materials collected by it prior to registration of case by police for cognizable offence can be considered only as preliminary enquiry. It would not come within purview of investigation under Section 2(h) of Cr.P.C.

       CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - Section 2(s): [A. V. Chandrashekara, J] Police station - Vigilance Cell of High Court - Held, It can be declared as police station only if High Court wants State Government to do so. When there is no such direction or notification issued by State Government declaring it as police station, mere posting of some police officials to Vigilance Cell will not empower State Government to declare it as police station

       CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - Sections 154, 162: [A. V. Chandrashekara, J] Registration of case - Vigilance cell of High Court is not a police station and material collected by it do not fall within purview of investigation. However case can be registered by police for cognizable offence on basis of report submitted by vigilance cell.

       CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - Sections 154, 162: [A. V. Chandrashekara, J] Registration of case - Vigilance cell of High Court is not a police station and material collected by it do not fall within purview of investigation. However case can be registered by police for cognizable offence on basis of report submitted by vigilance cell.

       CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - Section 482: [A.V. Chandrashekara, J] Quashing of Proceedings - Offence under Sections 7, 8, 12, 13(2), 13(1) and 13(D) of Prevention of Corruption Act - Petitioner, a Senior Civil Judge - Misconduct of demand and acceptance of bribe to do official favour in civil cases - Held, By no stretch of imagination, the Vigilance Cell of High Court can be considered as a ’police station’ and receipt of complaint and process adopted by the Registrar-Vigilance cannot be considered as ’investigation.’ The limited enquiry that could be held is to know whether it is a fit case to institute disciplinary proceedings. If the misconduct is of grave nature, it enables the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court, in consultation with the administrative Judge, to initiate criminal prosecution either by filing a complaint in terms of Section 2(d), Cr.P.C. or by filing a report to the jurisdictional police which would be the first information in terms of Section 154, Cr. P.C. Whatever materials collected by the Vigilance Cell in the present case and whatever statements of witnesses are recorded by the Vigilance Cell are in aid of ascertainment as to whether disciplinary proceedings could be initiated. Article 235 of the Constitution does not inhibit the High Court to initiate criminal prosecution so as to keep Judges in the Courts subordinate to it and members of the staff under control. So far as consequential departmental enquiry to be held and the action to be taken in cases of positive report is concerned, it would be governed under Article 309 of the Constitution.

        In the present case, the High Court has not chosen to file the complaint in terms of Section 2(d), Cr.P.C. which would enable the concerned Court to hold proceedings under Section 200, Cr.P.C. On the other hand, the report submitted by the complainant to the Principal District Judge was in turn forwarded to the Registrar General and it is the basis for giving oral direction to the Principal District Judge at Bidar to lodge FIR to the jurisdictional police for registration of a case relating to a cognizable offence punishable under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore the report so submitted by the District Judge on the oral instructions of the Registrar-Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka, to the Superintendent of Police, Bidar, who in turn has forwarded the same to the SHO is the only first information in terms of Section 154, Cr.P.C. In the present case, the report lodged by the Principal District Judge really discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. When information is lodged at the police station and offence is registered, mala fides of the first informant would be of secondary importance. It is materials collected during investigation by the police and evidence led in Court which decide the fate of the accused person. Therefore the case on hand does not require the use of extraordinary power vested in High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C., Investigating Agency was directed to expedite investigation and file a final report at the earliest.

       CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - Section 482: [A. V. Chandrashekara, J] Quashing of proceedings - Allegation against Judicial Officer as to demanding bribe - Report of Vigilance Cell of High Court and material collected by police prima facie disclosing commission of cognizable offence - Held, Proceedings is not liable to be quashed.