Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 33695
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J
DR.ASHOK V. – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE BY HON’BLE LOKAYUKTHA OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No.531 OF 2022 | PCR.NO.5/2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI SANDESH J.CHOUTA, SRI M.S.DEVARAJU
For the Respondents: SRI B.B.PATIL
The court held that private complaints against public servants require prior approval as per Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and must be supported by an affidavit, failing which they are unmaintainable.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 154, 156(3), 200 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)(d), 17A - Private complaint registration - The petitioner's challenge to the order referring a private complaint for investigation due to lack of affidavit compliance and authority's prior approval under Section 17A of the Act - The court emphasized that private complaints against public servants require prior approval to protect against malicious prosecution. (Paras 8, 10, 13-15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a District Officer, contested a private complaint alleging corruption relating to businesses supplying to the Backward Classes Welfare Department, which lacked necessary legal compliance in its initiation.
Findings of Court:
The complaint was quashed due to procedural defects including non-compliance with Sections 154 and 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and lack of an affidavit.
Issues: The maintainability of a private complaint without an affidavit and prior approval, and whether Section 17A applies to such complaints.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without prior approval per Section 17A and an accompanying affidavit, the complaint could not be entertained, protecting public servants from frivolous claims.
Result: Petition allowed, the order impugned stands quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the parties and complaint context. (Para 2) |
| 2. overview of matter's progression. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments on the validity of the complaint. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. acknowledgment of respondent's representation. (Para 6) |
| 5. court considers parties' submissions. (Para 7) |
| 6. discussion of complaint viability under law. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 7. importance of compliance with procedural requirements. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 8. mandatory approval for complaints against public servants. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 9. guidance for future complaint processing. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 10. final order and ruling on the complaint's validity. (Para 17) |
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question order dated 07-12-2021 passed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura in P.C.R.No.5 of 2021 referring the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., to the Police Inspector of the then Anti Corruption Bureau for offences punishable under Sections 403, 409, 120-B of the IPC and Sections 13 (1)(d) and 13(2) of the PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short).
FACTS:
2. The 2nd respondent is the complainant who claims to be a RTI Activist. The complainant appears to have some grievance upon M/s. Srisai Ram Enterprises and several other business entities which are carrying on business in Chitamani Town and regular suppliers to various Government Departments and hostels coming within the Backward Classes Welfare Department. The 2nd respondent sought certain information under the RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 from the Backward Classes Welfare Department and the Department had furnished certain information to the 2nd respondent. Based on the documents secured under the Right to Information Act the 2nd respondent does not choose to register a complaint before the jurisdictional police of the wing of the then Anti Corruption Bureau, but chooses to register a private complaint against several officers and four suppliers, the first of whom is the petitioner/accused No.1, District Officer and other four suppliers to the Departments. On registration of the complaint before the learned Sessions Judge, under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., the learned Sessions Judge refers the matter under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., to the jurisdictional Police of the Anti Corruption Bureau in terms of the order impugned dated 07-12-2021 directing report to be filed before 08-02-2022. The reference of the matter by the learned Sessions Judge for conduct of investigation by the Anti Corruption Bureau, is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. This Court in terms of its order dated 03-02-2022 grants an interim order of stay which is subsisting even as on date. Therefore, no further investigation has taken place in the case at hand against any of the accused.
3. Heard Sri Sandesh J. Chouta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.B. Patil, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.
SUBMISSIONS:
The petitioner’s:
4. The learned senior counsel would submit that the very registration of private complaint is contrary to law as there is no averment in the private complaint that there has been compliance with Section 154 (1) and 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. The private complaint could not have been entertained by the learned Sessions Judge directly without checks and balances under the Act being fulfilled; he would submit that the private complaint is not supported by an affidavit as held by the Apex Court in the case of PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 . He would further contend that there is no approval by the Competent Authority under 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He would submit that entire proceedings are a mockery of law and, therefore, should be obliterated.
The Lokayukta’s:
5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor Sri B.B. Patil representing the Karnataka Lokayukta would, however, seek to refute the submissions to contend that the learned Sessions J
