Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 33438
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J
SRI MOHAN KUMAR A. – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.24171 OF 2024 (GM – RES) | WRIT PETITION No.28337 OF 2024 (GM – RES) | WRIT PETITION No.24169 OF 2024 (GM - RES)
For the Appellants/Petitioners:SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SR.ADVOCATE, SRI SUBAIR K.M., ADVOCATE
For the Respondents:SRI K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL, SRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA, SRI MANTHAN DAYANANDA, ADVOCATE
Prior sanction is required for prosecuting public servants when their actions are in the discharge of official duties, and mere quashing of an FIR does not imply legal fault or just cause for prosecution.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 19 - Writ petitions seeking sanction to prosecute police officers for defamation and malicious prosecution after an FIR was quashed for being baseless - The Court holds that rejection of sanction does not warrant interference where no competent Court has declared the actions of police as illegal or flawed. (Paras 11, 18)
(B) Public Servants - Requirement of sanction - The Court emphasizes that if the actions of public servants are in discharge of their official duties, prior sanction for prosecution is mandatory. (Paras 16, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to prosecute police officers for actions taken during an investigation, which led to multiple FIRs, which were subsequently quashed. The Court found the grounds for prosecution lacked merit as the actions were deemed as part of official duties.
Findings of Court:
The rejection of the petitioner's requests for sanction to prosecute stands as there was no legal wrongdoing highlighted against the officers.
Issues: Whether the State should be compelled to reconsider the application for prosecution sanction against police officers.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that no legal basis existed to grant sanctions as the complaints lacked sufficient evidence against the officers, and their actions were performed in accordance with their duties.
Result: Writ Petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of writ petitions and commonality of petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. factual basis and procedural history of the cases. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments for and against the prosecution of police officers. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's observations on prior judgments and implications for police action. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. legal requirements for sanction under sections 197 and 19. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. decision on the petitions and implications for future proceedings. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. court's final order and rejections of petitions. (Para 22) |
CAV ORDER
The petitioner, in all the writ petitions, is common. The prayer that is sought in these cases is seeking sanction to prosecute certain Police Officers of different ranks. Therefore, the prayer that is sought is also common. Facts that lead to filing of these petitions are different in each case. Notwithstanding commonality, I deem it appropriate to deal with the issue petition by petition.
WRIT PETITIOIN NO.28337 of 2024
2. This petition calls in question communications dated 13-08-2024 and 07-10-2024 and seeks a consequential mandamus directing reconsideration of the representation of the petitioner dated 06-12-2023.
3. Facts in brief, germane are as follows:
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 the 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 petitioner. 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 petitioner. 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 petitioner 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 petitioner was searched without registering the crime. This Court interdicts further action against the petitioner. Finally a coordinate Bench of this Court allows the writ petition, quashes the FIR qua the petitioner in terms of its order dated 02-02-2023. After quashment of said proceedings, the petitioner knocks at the doors of the learned Special Judge for registering a private complaint against the some of the Police Officers invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge, by a detailed order, after recording the sworn statement of the petitioner 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 therein. The matter was directed to be listed on 04-06-2024. Accused Nos.1 to 7 therein have knocked at the doors of this Court calling in question the order of taking cognizance for the aforesaid offences.
5. This Court, in Criminal Petition No.5232 of 2024, in terms of its order dated 05-07-2024, allowed the petition in part, quashed the order of cognizance and directed that if sanction is granted, it would be open to the concerned Court to continue the proceedings and if there is no sanction, no further proceedings can go on. The said judgment ha
