IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 62298 OF 2016 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. B.N. RAJANNA S/O B.L. NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A NO.1309, 13^TH CROSS, 2^ND STAGE, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM WEST OF CORD ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 086 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SR. ADVOCATE SRI. R. HEMANTH RAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE POLICE INSPECTOR, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, Digitally signed KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA by PRASHANTH OFFICE SITUATED AT N V B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI Location: High Court of BANGALORE - 560 001 Karnataka

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, OFFICE SITUATED AT B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001

3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA OFFICE SITUATED AT B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001

4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY OFFICE SITUATED AT B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.S. PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND CHARGE SHEET IN SPECIAL CASE NO.70/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND CHARGE SHEET DTD:16.3.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-K RESPECTIVELY AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREON.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 06.02.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner being the accused in Spl.Case No.70/2014 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District registered for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Correction Act, 1988 (for short 'PC Act') is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

2. Heard Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Advocate for Sri. R Hemanth Raj, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.S. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the materials on record.

3. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner contended that the, petitioner was working as Assistant Executive Engineer at KPTCL, Peenya. A Source Information Report (for short 'SIR') is said to have been submitted by the police inspector without issuing notice to the accused. No preliminary enquiry was held. But on the basis of such source report, FIR came to be registered by the police inspector in Cr.No.09/2011 of Lokayukta Police.

4. Learned Senior Advocate referring to Section 17 (b)

and (c) of the PC Act submitted that, it is either Assistant Commissioner of police or Deputy Superintendent of Police as the case may be, or the police officer of equivalent rank who are authorised to investigate any offence punishable under the special statute. After registration of the FIR, realising that the police Inspector is not competent to conduct the investigation, DYSP was appointed as the Investigating Officer. But the investigation that was already conducted earlier by the Police inspector ,who was not authorised to conduct the investigation was carry forwarded, without holding de novo investigation. Therefore, the investigation undertaken by the police officer without any authority, is bad under law. Hence, the criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed.

5. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in D Nagaraj Vs. State of Karnataka¹ to contend that, a preliminary enquiry is a must before submitting the 'SIR'. When no such primary enquiry is held, the 'SIR' which was drawn without following the procedure as contemplated and which is also very bald, is liable to be rejected. In the present case, since the 'SIR' is treated as a complaint and the FIR came to be registered, the same is bad under law.

6. The next contention raised by the learned Senior Advocate is regarding sanction accorded by the Board of KPTCL. Referring to Section