Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22789
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13165 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MANJUNATHA T AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O TYAGARAJU C P, SECOND DIVISION ACCOUNT ASSISTANT, MANCHANAYAKANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
R/AT KOONAGAL VILLAGE, KP DODDI POST, KAILANCHA HOBLI, RAMANAGAR- 562 159.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHIRANJEEVI K R, AND SRI. KRISHNA MOORTI.L.BHAT, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, Digitally signed by KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA CHANDANA B M LEARNED SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, Location: High REPRESENTED BY Court of KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA Karnataka MS BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SRI. DEVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O. ANJANAPPA, SHESHAGIRIHALLI COLONY, HEJJAL POST, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANGARA.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 SRI. K.M. MURARI MOUNI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND INVESTIGATION IN CR.NO.07/2024, FOR OFFENCE P/U/S 13(1)(a) AND 13(2) OF P.C ACT, 1988, U/S 409,420,204 R/W 120(B) OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT RAMANAGARA.
THIS PETITION IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON 22.04.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
The court established that prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act is mandatory before initiating investigations against public servants, requiring substantial evidence linking an accused to the alleged offences.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)(a), 13(2), 17A - Indian Penal Code, Sections 409, 420, 204, and 120-B - Quashing of FIR - Petitioner, serving as Second Division Account Assistant, claimed no role in tax collection was found responsive to allegations of misappropriation against the Panchayat Development Officer - The complaint alleged misconduct primarily against accused No.1, and no credible evidence linked the petitioner to such alleged offences. The FIR was found arbitrary and lacking reasonable grounds for investigation against the petitioner, failing to satisfy statutory requirements under Section 17A of the PC Act, leading to the conclusion that the FIR constituted an abuse of legal process. (Paras 1, 6, 9, 11, and 18)
(B) Jurisprudential Principle - Statutory endorsement for prior approval requirement under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, ensuring public servants are safeguarded from unwarranted inquiries unless justified findings exist. The authority must apply its mind critically, going beyond just superficial approvals. (Paras 20.1, 23.1, and 28)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was implicated in a complaint about the financial misconduct of the Panchayat mixing allegations against multiple officials linked to tax collection, but no evidence substantiated claims of involvement against the petitioner.
Findings of Court:
The Court determined there was inadequate foundation to proceed against the petitioner under criminal statutes due to a lack of substantiating allegations found in the complaint and subsequent reports.
Issues: The main legal questions involved the justifiability of proceeding with the FIR against the absence of substantive allegations affirming the petitioner's connection to the alleged crimes, and the interpretation of statutory provisions requiring prior approvals for investigations against public servants under Section 17A.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court elucidated that mere approval by higher authorities without substantial backing, or evidence against the accused, does not justify investigations under the Prevention of Corruption Act; emphasizing compliance with Section 17A to ensure a just mechanism preventing arbitrary actions against public servants.
Result: Petition allowed; the FIR quashed.
CAV ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks for quashing of the impugned FIR dated 19.11.2024 registered as Crime No.07/2024 against the petitioner- accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the P.C.Act”) and Sections 409 , 420, 204 r/w Section 120-B of IPC and for other reliefs.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner who was working as Second Division Account Assistant (for short “SDAA”) of Manchanayakanahalli Gram Panchayat, Bidadi, on 03.05.2024, on which date, the 2nd respondent - de facto complainant filed complaint alleging misappropriation and embezzlement of funds of the panchayat by the Panchayath Development Officer (PDO) one Mr.Yatish (accused No.1) during the period 2022-23 and 2023-24. In pursuance of the said complaint, the Inspector General of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta called for a report from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, who submitted a report dated 06.05.2024 to the IGP seeking prior permission for further investigation under Section 17A of the P.C.Act not only as against accused No.1, Yatish but also against petitioner – accused No.2 and Vasumati – Bill collector (accused No.3) and Shashikumar – Bill Collector/Computer operator (accused No.4). In pursuance of the said report, the 1st respondent - Lokayukta sought permission from the competent authority empowered to grant approval under Section 17A of P.C Act, which was granted vide order dated 23.07.2024 against the petitioner as well as accused Nos.3 and 4. On 10.09.2024, prior/previous approval/permission under Section 17A was granted as against accused No.1 also.
4. Subsequently, the Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta conducted preliminary enquiry and submitted a report dated 14.11.2024, pursuant to which, the IGP, directed the 1st respondent to register an FIR against all accused persons and to conduct further investigation. Accordingly, an FIR in Crime No.07/2024 was registered against all the accused persons including the petitioner – accused No.2, who is before this Court by way of the present petition.
5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed their separate statement of objections and contested the present petition and sought for its dismissal.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the material on record in order to point out that the petitioner was merely as SDAA, who had neither any access nor any role in tax collection or remittance on behalf of the panchayat, where he was working and in the absence of any material to either connect / link the petitioner with the allegations of misappropriation / embezzlement of panchayat funds, the order granting prior/previous approval/permission under Section 17A of the P.C Act as well as the impugned FIR deserve to be quashed. In support of his submission he placed reliance upon the following judgments:
(i) Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttara Pradesh and others - (2014) 2 SCC 1 ;
(ii) Anees Vs. The State Government of NCT - 2024 INSC 368;
(iii) Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and another - 2024 INSC 369 ;
(iv) K.Shiva Kumar Vs. State by its Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai -
Crl.O.P.No.16673/ 2024 dated 06.01.2025.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 would reiterate the various contentions urged in their statement of objections and submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed by placing reliance upon the following judgments:
(i) P.Sirajuddin Vs. State of Madras - (1970) 1 SCC 595;
(ii) Charansing Vs. State of Maharashtra - (2021) 5 SCC 469.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
9. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the 2nd respondent – d
