IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
W.A. No.100262/2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
1.
SRI LAXMAN S/O SRI JARANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
PWD SUB-DIVISION, KOPPAL
KOPPAL DISTRICT-583 231.
2 . SRI. RAVI PRASAD S/O. S RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD SUB-DIVISION
R/AT NO.22, SRI LAXMINARASIMHA NILAYA
V.N RESIDENCY ROAD
CHIKKALASANDRA
BANGALORE-560-061
3.
SRI SELVA KUMAR S/O BALAKRISHNA.T
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
JUNIOR ENGINEER
C/O D.NO.D-4, KEB QUARTERS
BEHIND ESI HOSPITAL
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010
4.
SRI.H VISHWANATH S/O SRI SADASHIVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
2
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
M.I. SUB DIVISION
HALIYAL POST
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT
5 . SRI RAJSHEKAR KATTIMANI
S/O MARIYAPPA KATTIMANI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
WORKING AS A JUNIOR ENGINEER
MI SUB-DIVISION, KUSHTAGI
KOPPAL DISTRICT-583231
6.
SRI SHANKARGOWDA PATIL
S/O SRI DHARMAGOUDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
WORKING AS A JUNIOR ENGINEER
PRE SUB-DIVISION
RON, GADAG DISTRICT.
7 . SRI.M. LLIYAS S/O IBRAHIM SAB
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
WORKING AS A JUNIOR ENGINEER
PRE SUB DIVISION
YALBURGA, YALBURGA DISTRICT.
8 . SRI OMKAR MURTHY
S/O SRI VEERACHAR. B
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
WORKING AS A JUNIOR ENGINEER
PRE SUB DIVISION
YALBURGA, YALBURGA DISTRICT-583231.
9.
SRI V.S. HALLI S/O SADASHIVAPPA HALLI
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
WORKING AS A JUNIOR ENGINEER
PRE SUB-DIVISION, SINDAGI
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT.
10 . SRI R. SHARANAPPA GOUDA
S/O LATE SRI SHIVANAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
3
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
MINOR IRRIGATION SUB- DIVISION
YADIGIRI,
R/AT NIJLINGAPPA COLONY
RAICHUR.
11 . SRI. THOTAGANTI B.C.
S/O CHANNAPPA TOTAGANTI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RETIRED ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD SUB-DIVISION
KUSTAGI,
R/AT HOUSING COLONY
NEAR MARUTHI TEMPLE
MANTUR ROAD, MUDHOL
BAGALKOT DISTRICT-583231
12. SRI ZAKIR HUSSAIN S/O B. ABDUL LATEEF
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
MINOR IRRIGATION
SUBDIVISION, KUSHTAGI
KOPPAL DISTRICT-583231
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.F V PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ
DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2.
THE REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001.
4
3.
THE INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE
ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU
KHANIJA BHAVAN
BANGALORE-560 001.
4.
THE POLICE INSPECTOR
ANTI- CORRUPTION BUREAU
KOPPAL
KOPPAL DISTRICT-583 231.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI.ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
SRI.SUNIL S DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO,
A) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2021 PASSED IN WP
NOS.63379-80/2016 C/W WP NOS. 58381-385/2016, 61291-
302/2016, 65259/2016 AND 107657/2017 BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS
AGAINST THE APPELLANTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY, B) AND GRANT SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTIONS
AS
THIS
HON’BLE
COURT
DEEMS
FIT
UNDER
THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, INCLUDING COSTS, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
COMING
ON
FOR
‘PRONOUNCEMENT
OF
JUDGMENT’, THIS DAY, ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
5
JUDGEMENT
Writ petitions filed by the petitioners are disposed of
by common order dated 26.02.2021, wherein the writ
petitions invoking Articles 226, 227 of Constitution of India
and Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short,
‘Cr.P.C.’) are rejected.
2.
The prayer made in the writ petitions would
read as under:
“Call for records relating to the issue of the
order/complaint bearing No.Gra.Aa.Pa.35 Enq
2015,
Bengaluru,
dated
03.10.2016
(Annexure-A) f respondent No.1 and FIR dated
07.11.2016 in Crime No.3/2016 on the file of
the learned Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Koppal and quash the same.”
3.
The petitioners are before this Court invoking
Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. Brief
facts of the case are as under:
6
3.1
The complaint was registered in Cr.No.3/2016
by Anti Corruption Bureau police station, Koppal Taluk,
Koppal
District
against
the
petitioners
alleging
misappropriation of funds. The further details relating to
the above said complaint is not necessary for adjudication
of this case. The copy of FIR was sent to District and
Sessions Judge, Koppal as required under law. The
petitioners
being
aggrieved
by
the
complaint
and
registration of FIR approached this Court by filing a
petition in W.P.No.63379-80/2016 and connected matters.
3.2
The petitioners have essentially prayed to
quash the FIR in Crime No.3/2016 and to quash all further
proceedings before the Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Koppal pursuant to the above-referred FIR. The
learned Single Judge after hearing the petitioners and the
respondents in terms of the detailed order dated:
26.02.2021, deemed it appropriate to dismiss the writ
petitions. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petitions
the petitioners have preferred the instant appeal. The
7
appeal is heard on the question of maintainability under
Section 4 of Karnataka High Court Act.
4.
Learned counsel for the appellants, Sri.F.V.Patil
justifying the appeal has placed reliance on the following
judgements:
1. Gurushanth Pattedar vs. Mahaboob Shahi
Kulburga Mills and Another [ILR 2005 KAR
2503]
2. Shreemad Jagadguru Shankaracharya Shree
Shree Raghaveshwara Bharathi Swamiji vs.
State of Karnataka, Girinagara Police Station
and Others [ILR 2015 KAR 842]
3. Ram Kishan Fauji vs. the State of Haryana
and Others [(2017) 5 SCC 533]
4. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vs.
Asim Shariff and Others [ILR 2018 KAR 2915]
5. Sri.Sachin Narayan vs. The Income Tax
Department
and
Others
(Writ
Appeal
No.3611/201 and connected matters decided
on 17.09.2019)
8
6. India Awake For Transparency vs. Mr Azim
Hasham Premji and Others (Writ Appeal
No.224/2021 c/w. Writ Appeal No.242/2021
decided on 22.02.2021)
5.
By placing reliance on the above judgements,
Sri.F.V.Patil would submit that the order passed by the
learned Single Judge is to be construed as an order passed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction and as such would
submit that the appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act is maintainable.
6.
In support of his submission he would also
refer to the prayer made in the writ petitions and would
submit that the petitioners have not questioned any
proceeding before the Court subordinate to the High Court,
as such the petitions cannot be construed as the petitions
filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and
Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
7.
Further, the learned counsel would submit that
the
prayer
made
in
the
writ
petitions
would
in
9
unmistakable terms lead to the conclusion that the
petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for
the appellants, Sri.F.V.Patil that in view of the circular
issued by the High Court, all petitions filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to q
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.