SREE SOMESHWAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5659/2021

Between:

Sri Abraham T.J.
S/o Late Sri Joseph T.A.
Aged about 58 years
#2326, 'Ashirwad'
2^nd 'A' Cross, 16^th 'B' Main
H.A.L. 2^nd Stage
Indiranagara
Bengaluru - 560 008.

… Petitioner

(By Sri Vikas Upadhyay, Advocate a/w
Sri Ashwin Kumar Nair, Advocate and
Sri Gaurav G.K. Advocate,
Sri Akash V.T., Advocate,
Smt. Anusha Nandish, Advocate)

And:

1.
Sri B.S. Yediyurappa

S/o Late Sri Siddalingappa,

Aged about 77 years

Room No.323A, 3^rdFloor,

Vidhana Soudha,

Bengaluru - 560 001.

Also At:

R/at: #381, Dhavalagiri,

6^th Cross, 80 Ft. Road,
R

2

RMV Second Stage,

Dollars Colony

Bengaluru - 560 094.

2.
Sri B.Y. Vijayendra

S/o Sri B.S. Yediyurappa

Aged about 37 years

Residing at #1, 12,

Yamuna Bai Road, Madhava Nagar

Gandhi Nagar

Bengaluru - 560 001.

3.
Sri Shashidar Maradi,

S/o Virupakashappa

Yamakanamardi

Major

R/at No.A1001

Vaishnavi Splendour Apartment

Poojari Layout, Geddalahalli

RMV 2^nd Stage,

Bengaluru - 560 094.

4.
Sri Sanjay Sree

Son-in-Law of Sri Virupakashappa

Yamakanamardi and

Smt. Padmavathi

Major

Care of and Resident of:

A1001, Vaishnavi Splendour Apartment

Poojari Layout, Geddalahalli

RMV 2^nd Stage,

Bengaluru - 560 094.

5.
Sri Chandrakanth Ramalingam

S/o Ramalingam

Major

No.705, ETA Garden

Binny Mills Road

Bengaluru - 560 023.

3
6.
Sri S.T. Somashekar,

Members of Legislative Assembly

Yeshwanthpura Assembly

Constituency

S/o Thimmegowda

Aged about 63 years

#154, 4^th Main Road, 2^nd Cross,

Near HP Petrol Bunk,

Jagajyothi Layout

Gynana Bharathi Post

Bengaluru - 560 056.

7.
Dr. G.C. Prakash I.A.S.,

Father name not known to the

Complainant

Aged about 59 years

Presently the Regional Commissioner,

Mysuru

High View, Vinoba Road

Opposite Kalamandir,

Mysuru,

Karnataka - 570 005.

8.
Sri K. Ravi

Father name not known to the

Complainant

Major

Proprietor

37^thCrescent Hotel

Race Course Rd.,

Opp. Mallige Hospital

High Grounds

Bengaluru - 560 001.

9.
Sri Virupakashappa

Yamakanamardi

Husband of Smt. Padmavathi

Major

R/at: A1001,

4

Vaishnavi Splendour Apartment

Poojari Layout, Geddalahalli

RMV 2^nd Stage,

Bengaluru - 560 094.

Also at:

No.52, Madhura Estate,

Keshwapur,

Hubli - 580 023.

… Respondents

(By Sri C.V. Nagesh, Senior Advocate for
Sri Sandeep S. Patil and
Smt. Swamini G. Mohanambal, Advocates for R1 & R2;
Sri Manmohan P.N., Advocate for
Sri Vinay N., Advocate for R5;
Sri A.S. Mahesha, Advocate for R6;
Sri Nagendra Naik, Advocate for
Sri Amar Correa, Advocate for R7;
Sri Siddharth B. Muchandi, Advocate for R4;
Sri Srinivasa C., Advocate for R8;
Sri Vinayaka B., Advocate for R3 and R9;
Sri Venkatesh S. Arbatti, Amicus Curie)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to quash the Order dated 08.07.2021
passed by the Court Hon'ble LXXXI Addl. City Civil and
Sessions
Judge,
at
Bengaluru
(CCH-82)
in
P.C.R.
No.40/2021 and whereby the Private Complaint filed by
the Petitioner under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and direct to
same to be restored and to register FIR against the
Accused persons, for the offences punishable under
Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and Sections 383, 384, 415, 418, 420, 34 &
120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

This Criminal Petition having been heard and
reserved on 21.06.2022 coming on for pronouncement of
orders this day, the Court, made the following:

5

S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV. J

THIS ORDER HAS BEEN DIVIDED INTO THE FOLLOWING

SECTIONS TO FACILITATE ANALYSIS:

FACTS OF THE CASE

SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES

III

ANALYSIS

A. WHETHER SANCTION OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY

IS REQUIRED BEFORE PASSING AN ORDER FOR

INVESTIGATION

UNDER

SECTION

156(3)

CR.P.C.?

CONSEQUENCES OF ORDER OF REFERENCE

AND DECIDING THEREAFTER;

COGNIZANCE AND ORDER FOR INVESTIGATION

UNDER SECTION 156(3) OF CR.P.C.;

PARI MATERIA PROVISIONS OF P.C. ACT, 1947

AND P.C. ACT, 1988;

CONSIDERATION OF JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON

BY RESPONDENTS AND CITED BY AMICUS

CURIAE;

B. WHETHER REQUIREMENT OF PREVIOUS APPROVAL

FROM THE

REQUISITE

AUTHORITY

BEFORE

CONDUCTING ANY ENQUIRY,

INQUIRY

INVESTIGATION

INTO

OFFENCE

UNDER

SECTION 17A OF P.C. ACT, WOULD ACT AS A BAR

ON THE SPECIAL JUDGE

FOR

PASSING

ORDER UNDER SECTION 156(3) OF CR.P.C.

VIS-À-VIS

THE

PUBLIC

SERVANTS,

i.e.,

ACCUSED NOS.1, 6 AND 7?

WHETHER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY RESPONSE

FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY REGARDING

GRANT

SANCTION

SOUGHT

AGAINST

ACCUSED NOS. 6 AND 7 OUGHT THE SPECIAL

JUDGE HAVE PROCEEDED ON THE PREMISE OF

DEEMED SANCTION AS CONTENDED?

WHETHER THE SPECIAL JUDGE HAS ERRED IN

DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN ITS ENTIRETY

EVEN AS AGAINST ACCUSED OTHER THAN

PUBLIC SERVANTS, VIZ., ACCUSED NOS. 2, 3,

4, 5, 8 AND 9 ONLY ON THE GROUND OF

REJECTION OF SANCTION AGAINST ACCUSED

NO.1

AND

ABSENCE

SANCTION

FOR

PROSECUTION OF ACCUSED NOS.6 AND 7?

OTHER ASPECTS

IN RE. XYZ V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND

ANOTHER;

OFFENCES UNDER THE PREVENTION OF MONEY

LAUNDERING ACT.

REJECTION OF SANCTION AS REGARDS ACCUSED

NO.1.

ORDER

FACTS OF THE CASE:-

The petitioner has called in question the validity

of the order dated 08.07.2021 passed by the Court of

LXXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru

(CCH-82) in PCR No.40/2021, whereby the Private

Complaint filed under Section 200 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for brevity) and

the interim application filed by the Complainant under

Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. have been found to be not

maintainable in the absence of valid sanction and

accordingly, the complaint and the application have

been dismissed.

The petitioner has been referred to as

'Complainant' and the respondents have been referred

to as 'Accused' for the sake of convenience.

The Complainant has sought for restoration

of the complaint and to register the First information

Report ('FIR') against the accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('P.C. Act' for

brevity) and under Sections 383, 384, 415, 418, 420

read with Section 34 and Section 120B of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for brevity).

The facts as made out in the complaint are

that the Complainant had lodged information in

accordance with Section 154 of Cr.P.C. on 19.11.2020

before the Anti Corruption Bureau, Bengaluru ('ACB'

for

brevity)

against

the

accused

alleging

the

commission of offence as referred to above.

It is further stated that the ACB had issued

notice

the

seeking

for

certain

documents

and

clarification

and

despite

such

clarification, the information/complaint lodged before

the ACB came to be closed and an endorsement dated

15.12.2020 came to be issued in that respect.

Accordingly, the Private Complaint came to

be filed before the Special Court seeking to take

cognizance of the offences as follows:-

(i)

Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13 of the P.C.

Act;

(ii)

Sections 383, 384, 415, 418, 420 read

with Sections 34 and 120B of IPC;

(iii) Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of

Money Laundering Act, 2002 ('PMLA'

for brevity).

A further prayer was also sought to direct

the Investigating Agency to register FIR under Section

156(3) of Cr.P.C. to conduct investigation and proceed

in accordance with law.

It is submitted that the Complainant had

approached Governor of Karnataka seeking sanction

for

prosecuting

Accused

No.1

and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document