Point of Law: Economic Offences-unlawful circulation of cigarettes – Quash of FIR - where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, the Court can exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

Criminal Petition No.2470/2020, Criminal Petition No.2473/2020 and Criminal Petition No.2485/2020, are filed by the same accused for the same offences of different crimes in Crime Nos.15/2020, 16/2020 and 17/2020, on the file of 23rd Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. Hence, all the petitions are taken up together for common disposal.

2. The factual matrix of the case in Crl.P.No.2470/2020 is that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Commissioner of Police in Central Crime Branch (‘CCB’), Bengaluru City, and he was a supervisory officer of the Economic Offences Wing in the CCB. That on 30.03.2020, a complaint came to be filed and registered by the Banaswadi Police Station as against one Surush and others for an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, making the allegation that manufacturing of masks in the Lab of the accused, situated in Banaswadi and the said masks containing the fake seals and certification to provide standardization for the masks manufactured by him. The said crime, which is numbered as Crime No.164/2020 and the same was transferred to CCB, by the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City, and one Shri Guruprasad, Police Inspector was appointed as the Investigating Officer. The CCB, accordingly, commenced their investigation. When the things stood thus, it appears that on 11.05.2020, the Joint Commissioner of Police – Crime-I, who is the head of the CCB, has addressed a letter to the second respondent that the petitioner and another Police Inspector Shri R.M.Ajay, have obtained money to close the case in Crime No.164/2020.

3. Based on the said order, the third respondent herein has enquired the matter by recording the statement on 12.05.2020. Based on the statement made by the third respondent, the second respondent addressed a letter on the very same day to the first respondent – police taking action against the petitioner and the Inspector of Police Shri R.M.Ajay. The first respondent based on the letter and the statement of the third respondent, have proceeded to register an FIR against the petitioner and the Police Inspector Shri R.M. Ajay in Crime No.64/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 384 read with Section 34 of IPC.

4. It is contended that when matters stood thus, the first respondent – ACB has registered an FIR in Crime No.17/2020 dated 21.05.2010 in respect of the same incident for the offences punishable under Sections 7A, 13(1)(a) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the PC Act’ for short). The said FIR – Annexure ‘A’ is registered on the basis of a request made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB to the 23rd Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The said request made to the Court referring the various communications addressed by the Senior Police Officers, such as, Director General and Inspector General-Karnataka, Additional Director General of Police -ACB, Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City etc., and a request to the Court to permit to carry out investigation into Crime No.17/2020 for the aforesaid offences under the PC Act. A copy of the FIR in Crime No.17/2020 registered by respondent – ACB dated 21.05.2020 and the complaint dated 21.05.2020 are produced as Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’.

5. It is also contended that in an identical fashion on 06.05.2020, the Joint Commissioner of Police had issued a letter/direction to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime-I, to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner, with regard to another case in Crime No.167/2020 registered in Banasawadi Police Station with regard to illegal sale of cigarettes. Based on the said order, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, who conducted an enquiry and in an identical fashion recorded the statement of the accused person in that crime and writes a letter dated 12.05.2020, to the very same police, the first respondent herein, annexing the statement recorded by him in the course of his so called enquiry and the first respondent-p