Karnataka High Court
Mr P Gangadharappa S/O Late Mr D H ... vs State Of Karnataka on 14 August, 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. N. KESHAVANARAYANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.551/2013
BETWEEN:
1. Mr. P. Gangadharappa,
S/o. Late Mr. D. H. Puttarajappa,
Aged 47 years,
Residing at No 262/7,
PWD Quarters,
Yelahanka New Town,
Bangalore 560 094.
2. Mr. D. Narayanappa,
S/o. Late Mr. Dasappa,
Aged 55 years,
Residing at No 36,
Geddalahalli, Kothanur Post,
Bangalore 560 077. ... Petitioners
(By Sri.I. S. Pramod Chandra &
Sri.Prakash M.H., Advocates)
AND:
State of Karnataka,
By Lokayukta Police, Rural Division,
Bangalore,
Represented by Special Public Prosecutor,
Karnataka Lokayukta,
M. S.Building, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore- 560 001. ... Respondent
(By Sri.B.A.Belliappa, Advocate)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C praying to quash the registration of FIR in Crime
No.16/2012 with the Lokayukta Police, Rural Division, Bangalore
and now pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions
Judge and Special Judge under Prevention of Corruption Act,
Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, as against the petitioners etc.
This Criminal Petition coming for admission on this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
Though this matter is listed for admission, by consent of the learned counsels appearing on both sides, the same has been heard for final disposal, as the question of law raised in this petition is covered by decision of this court.
2) The petitioners have been arraigned as Accused Nos. 1 & 2 in Crime No.16/12 registered by Dy.S.P., Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(a) & (d) r/w. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act ( for short, P.C. Act').
3) The petitioners have sought for quashing the said FIR inter alia on the grounds that the procedure adopted by Respondent-Lokayuktha Police in conducting the search and seizure without registering the FIR as contemplated under 3 Section 154 of Cr.P.C. is bad in law and contrary to the various decisions of this Court.
4) According to the respondent, on 31.08.2012, the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, received credible information to the effect that the officials working in the office of the Assistant Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Doddaballapur, are demanding and accepting huge amounts as bribe from the general public for discharging their official duties. The Superintendent of Police instructed the Dy.S.P. to verify the same and take suitable action in the mater. Therefore, the Dy.S.P. secured the presence of two panchas, appraised them about the credible information received and along with the panchas and staff went to the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur at about 3.45 pm. on 31.08.2012. Inside the office, the Dy.S.P. with the help of his staff, conducted personal search of the officials working there and at that time, the 1st petitioner was found throwing a bag which was on his table and immediately the 1st petitioner was 4 caught hold and when the bag thrown by him was searched by the raiding-party it was found containing currency notes of denomination of Rs.1,000/- and also Rs.500/- totaling to Rs.40,000/-. When the personal search of the 1st petitioner was conducted, he was found possessing Rs.17,000/- cash in the pant-pocket and Rs.1,000/- in his wallet. During the personal search of the 1st petitioner, a car key was found in his possession and on enquiry, the 1st petitioner stated to have informed that the key pertains to the car bearing registration No.KA-43-M-2927 and it belongs to his brother and the said car is parked in the downstairs. Thereafter, when the car was searched, inside the car, the raiding-party found cash of Rs.60,000/- and the said cash was also seized. The explanations of the 1st petitioner with regard to said cash found with him as well as in the car were recorded. During the further search of the table draw of the 2nd petitioner, cash of Rs.4,000/- was found. However, at that time, the 2nd petitioner was not present there, but on his return, his explanation as to Rs.4,000/- found in his table draw, was 5 recorded. Thereafter, in respect of the search and seizure, a detailed mahazar was drawn between 5.00 and 8.00 p.m. on that day i.e., 31.08.2012, and both these petitioners were arrested and later, on return to the Station House, the Dy.S.P., on the basis of the report of the Police Inspector, registered the case in Crime No.16/2012 and took-up investigation. Thus, from the above, it is clear that before proceeding to conduct the raid, search and seizure, no FIR had been registered by the respondent-Lokayuktha Police in respect of any of the offences. The case came to be registered only on the basis of the search and seizure effected earlier.
5) In L. Shankaramurthy Vs. State by Lokayuktha Police [(2012) 5 KLJ 545], this Court has observed thus in Paragraphs- 31 to 35:-
"31. It is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid principle laid down by the Apex Court that in respect of a cognizable offence, the officer in charge is duty- bound to reduce the information received by him to writing and then has to register the case and thereafter can proceed with the investigation and he 6 has no other option open to him. Therefore, the police officer in charge is duty bound to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C.
32. In the cases of the present petitioners, there has been no such compliance of the mandatory provision of law as contained in Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. and the seizure panchanama cannot take the place of complaint or information. Thus, it is clear that the procedure followed by the Police Officer concerned is contrary to the mandatory provisions as contained in Section 154 of the Cr.P.C.
33. The scheme of the Cr.P.C. also makes it clear that, Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. gives power to the police officer to take up investigation only after sending a report to the Magistrate, and power to take cognizance of such offence where the officer concerned, from the information received or otherwise, has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered to investigate under Section 156 of the Cr.P.C., he shall follow the requirement of Section 157 before embarking upon the investigation. It is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid provisions of the Cr.P.C. that the police officer concerned cannot proceed with the 7 investigation without first registering the case upon the information received by him.
34. This court, in the case of Mahadevappa has also taken the view that the Lokayuktha police have got suo motu power to initiate proceeding, but in view of Section 157 of the Cr.P.C., the police officer can press the law into motion not only on the basis of the information received by him but also otherwise.
35. In the light of the aforesaid position in the law laid down by the Apex Court in particular in the aforementioned cases, the entire proceeding leading to conducting the seizure panchanama even without registering the cases as required under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. is illegal, contrary to law and is in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the act on the part of the police officer concerned is nothing but an act which could be termed as abuse of the process of law."
The principles of law laid down in the aforesaid decision squarely applies to the case on hand.
6) A Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.15941/2012 and connected petitions in the case of 8 Girishchandra and Another Vs. State by Lokayuktha Police, disposed of on 05.02.2013, has held thus in Para- 10, which reads as under:-
"10. With regard to the question whether registration of FIR should precede the investigation or that FIR could be registered in the midst of the process of investigation would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In a situation where an offence is committed right in the presence of a police officer, it would be imprudent to insist that he should rush to the police station to record the FIR. The police officer should immediately act like apprehending the accused, sending the victim to medical treatment, etc., and thereafter registration of FIR would be an ideal investigation procedure. Otherwise, in all other type of cases, registration of FIR is mandatory since FIR is to be sent to the Court at the earliest stage, so that no manipulating and tampering of facts would be possible. If the FIR is sent to the court, all further investigation should necessarily be consistent with the FIR ".9
7) In the light of the aforesaid principles and having regard to the fact that in the case on hand, the search and seizure were effected without registering the FIR as required under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., the entire procedure adopted by the Respondent-Police is bad in law and is contrary to the principles of law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions. Hence, the FIR registered by the respondent in Crime No.16/2012 against these petitioners is hereby quashed.
SD/-
JUDGE KGR*