The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

the order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the learned

Magistrate rejecting private complaint filed by the

- 3 -

petitioner in PCR No.56/2019 for offences punishable

under Sections 182, 211 and 499 of the IPC.

Brief facts that leads the petitioner to this Court

in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings,

are as follows:

A little walk in history is needed to consider the case

of the petitioner. The petitioner is the complainant and has

filed a complaint against one B. Satish in Crime

No.152/2011 and the petitioner was an accused in the

complaint registered by B. Satish in Crime No.157/2011.

Both these cases are investigated into, and charge sheets

are filed by the Police. Insofar as the petitioner is

concerned, who is an accused in Crime No.157/2011, the

petitioner files an application seeking his discharge from

the case on the ground that none of the allegations could

be proved even if it is taken in its true sense. The learned

Magistrate, by his order dated 24.04.2017, accepts the

application for discharge of the petitioner and passes an

- 4 -

order of discharge. While passing an order of discharge,

the concerned Court observes that the petitioner without

any rhyme or reason is hauled into the proceedings due to

the act of the Investigating Officer who conducted a

slipshod investigation and filed an erroneous charge sheet,

notwithstanding no offence being made out against the

petitioner.

After the discharge of the petitioner, the

petitioner registers a private complaint invoking Section

200 of the Cr.P.C. for offences punishable under Sections

182, 211 and 499 of the IPC before the learned

Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, considering the fact

that the accused therein was a public servant and there

was no sanction obtained, directed the petitioner to

produce the order of sanction. The petitioner gives a

representation to the competent authority to accord

sanction for prosecuting the accused for the aforesaid

offences in the light of the fact that he was the

- 5 -

Investigating Officer against whom several observations

were made by the concerned Court.

4.

The competent authority at whose hands the

sanction was sought for, issues an endorsement that L.

Srinivasa whom the petitioner had sought sanction to

prosecute was not the Investigating Officer and therefore,

sanction cannot be accorded. Taking note of the said

endorsement, the complaint filed before the learned

Magistrate in PCR No.56/2019 comes to be rejected. The

rejection of the complaint is what drives the petitioner to

this Court in the subject petition.

5.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the crime having been investigated into by

L. Srinivas in Crime No.157/2011, could not have escaped

the clutches of law for having conducted a slipshod

investigation and made the petitioner as an accused and

would contend that the second respondent is liable for

- 6 -

malicious prosecution in the light of the observations made

by the concerned Court.

6.

On the other hand, the learned HCGP on

instructions would submit that the endorsement was

issued owing to the fact that all the investigation and filing

of charge sheet was done by one H.Rayappa and not L.

Srinivas and therefore, the endorsement cannot be found

fault with.

7.

The learned counsel representing L. Srinivas

would contend that there were two crimes registered; one

by the petitioner and the other against the petitioner.

Against the petitioner was in Crime No.152/2011, which

he investigated and filed a charge sheet. The crime

registered on the complaint of the petitioner was one

157/2011, which was not investigated by him and the

investigation was conducted by H.Rayappa. Therefore, he

would contend that he not being the Investigating Officer,

sanction was erroneously sought. He would further

- 7 -

contend that the bar under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C.

would operate, as the offences alleged are th