ORDER :

K. NATARAJAN, J.

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR in Crime No.54/2023 registered by the Lokayuktha Police, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Section 13 (1)(b) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'P.C.Act') pending on the file of 23rd Additional City Civil Judge and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.

2. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 1998, the petitioner was appointed an Assistant Engineer in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Munirabad. Thereafter, he was transferred to Koramangala Division and Hebbala Division of BESCOM and worked as Executive Engineer. The respondent police registered FIR based upon the source report dated 05.10.2023 wherein it is alleged that, when the petitioner was working as Executive Engineer at BESCOM from 11.11.1998 till 30.09.2023, he has amassed assets to the tune of Rs.6,64,67,000/- (92.54%) disproportionate to the known source of his income. The Police registered FIR by obtaining the order Section 17 of Prevention of Corruption Act., which is under challenge.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the registration of FIR is bad in law and unsustainable in the eye of law. The petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence. The case has been registered to harass him. There is no order passed as per proviso (ii) to Section 17 of Prevention of Corruption Act which is mandatory for investigating the matter under Section 13 (1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is further contended that the police officer not below the rank of Dy.S.P. shall not investigate the matter, but the Police Inspector registered and took up investigation, which is in contravention of Prevention of Corruption Act.

4. It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that, in catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, in order to protect the interest of the government servant, preliminary enquiry has to be conducted against the government servant prior to registering FIR and thereafter, an FIR shall be registered, if the cognizable offence is made out. It is further contended that on perusal of the source report, the assets declared by the petitioner during the joining service has not been considered, it was mentioned as 'Zero' in respect of statement 'A', but only considered the other properties and registered the FIR. They have not verified the income tax returns and APRs in preliminary enquiry before taking the investigation. It is further contended that the FIR was registered on 04.12.2023 and the source report was filed on 5.10.2023, there is delay of 60 days in filing the FIR.

5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is manipulation of the FIR in respect of the order passed by the Superintendent of Police under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. There is two different dates in respect of source report. Therefore, prayed to quash the FIR.

6. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

7. The learned Special Counsel for the respondent has filed the statement of objections and argued that there is an order passed by the Superintendent of Police under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which was not verified by the petitioner, and by misleading the Court, obtained the stay order. It is further contended that based upon the source report, the Superintendent of P