Sanction is mandatory for prosecuting public servants for actions related to their official duties, as outlined under Sections 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 197 of the Cr.P.C.

ORDER

The petitioners 1 to 7 are before this Court calling in question an order dated 30-05-2024 passed by the XXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bengaluru in P.C.R.No.11 of 2024, by which the Special Judge takes cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 167 , 219, 384, 448, 465, 466, 468, 469, 471, 506, 511, 120B r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short) and issues summons to the petitioners.

2. Heard Sri C. V. Nagesh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Murthy D. Naik, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The facts adumbrated are as follows: The petitioners claim to be officers of the then Anti Corruption Bureau (‘ACB’ for short), Bangalore City. A crime comes to be registered in Crime No.55 of 2021 against unknown persons on 19-11-2021. This is based on a complaint with regard to the touts and middlemen belonging to sites and other properties of the Bangalore Development Authority; it was more so with regard to distribution of sites to the general public and fraud taking place therein. Several allegations were made with regard to bogus or forged documents being created for the purpose of defrauding the common man and being completely hand in glove with the officers of the Bangalore Development Authority. The crime comes to be registered for offences punishable under Sections 7(a), 7(A), 8, 12, 13(1)(a) r/w 13(2) of the Act. During the course of investigation, it appears that the 3rd petitioner who was then officer of the ACB in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police, obtains a search warrant from the hands of the learned Magistrate to conduct search in the premises of the respondent. It was said to be on a rented premises and nothing was found at the time of search. A second search was conducted in the house and office of the respondent/ complainant. Here the search party lay hands upon certain documents, cash, jewellery and several other items and they were all sought to be seized.

4. During the pendency of these proceedings, the respondent knocks at the doors of this Court in Writ Petition No.7994 of 2022 seeking quashment of FIR in Crime No.55 of 2021 on the ground that house of the respondent was searched without registering the crime. This Court interdicts further action against the respondent. Finally a coordinate Bench of this Court allows the writ petition, quashes the FIR qua the respondent in terms of its order dated 02-02-2023. After quashment of said proceedings, the complainant knocks at the doors of the learned Special Judge for registering a private complaint against the petitioners invoking Section 200 of the CR.P.C. The learned Special Judge, by a detailed order, after recording the sworn statement of the respondent takes cognizance of the offences afore-quoted and directs registration of the case and putting it up for furnishing list of witnesses and issuance of process to accused 1 to 7/petitioners. The matter was directed to be listed on 04-06-2024. Petitioners herein/Accused 1 to 7 have knocked at the doors of this Court calling in question the order of taking cognizance for the aforesaid offences.

5. The learned senior counsel Sri C.V.Nagesh would vehemently contend that the petitioners are hig