Karnataka High Court
Mr. Prakash N vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 August, 2022
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
CRL.P No. 5897 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5897 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. MR. PRAKASH.N
S/O S.NARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
SENIOR TECHNICAL OFFICER
DESIGN AND FABRICATION UNIT,
CENTRAL FOOD TECHNOLOGICAL
RESEARCH INSTITUTE (CFTRI)
MYSORE-570 011
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PREMKUMAR C S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU
Digitally signed
by POORNIMA
REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SHIVANNA 2. SRI MALLASETTY.A
Location: HIGH
COURT OF S/O APPANNA SETTY,
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT NO.457/B, LOOP ROAD,
IDEAL HOME TOWN,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 098
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI.NAGARAJA KUMBLE, ADVOCATE FOR R2.)
-2-
CRL.P No. 5897 of 2017
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C
TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
PCR.NO.4347/2017 AT ANNEXURE[A1] AND FIR IN
CR.NO.143/2017 AT ANNEXURE[B] IN THE COURT OF III
ACMM, BANGALORE, IN SO FAR AS HE IS CONCERNED.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following relief:
"Quash the entire proceedings in PCR No.4347/2017 at Annexure(A1) and FIR in CR.No.143/2017 at Annexure (B) in the Court of the 3rd ACMM, Bangalore, insofar as he is concerned to meet the ends of justice."
2. The Rajarajeshwari Nagar police station registered Crime No.143/2017 for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC against the petitioner on the basis of a PCR filed by the respondent in PCR No.4347/2017 whereunder the Magistrate referred the matter under Section 156[3] of Cr.P.C to the Police Inspector of RR Nagar police station to investigate and report. The allegation made in the said complaint are that the complainant is a retired -3- CRL.P No. 5897 of 2017 Government Employee who worked as a Diet Officer at Teacher Training Center, Mysore and the accused is a Senior Technical Officer, Design and Fabrication Unit at the Central Food Technological Research Institute [CFTRI] Mysore.
3. The complainant in the fag end of his career, met one Ms.Roopa, a trainee at Teacher's Training Center, Mysore who had informed the complainant that CFTRI was recruiting mechanical engineers. Since the complainant's son is a mechanical engineer, he had expressed that his son would be interested in the job. When Ms.Roopa informed him that one of her relatives namely accused was working at CFTRI and he being influential is capable of getting an appointment for the complainant's son. It is in that background, the complainant contacted the accused who requested for payment of Rs.2,50,000/- so as to enable him to secure a job for the -4- CRL.P No. 5897 of 2017 complainant's son. It is for that reason the said amount was paid.
4. The complainant had filed a suit in O.S.No.2827/2016 for recovery of money since the job was not made available. However, the said suit came to be dismissed on the ground that a suit to enforce an illegal contract is barred under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act 1872.
5. Subsequent thereto the complainant has filed the above PCR No.4347/2017 which is referred to the RR Nagar police for investigation.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the suit in O.S.No.2827/2016 had been dismissed, the question of filing a separate criminal complaint thereafter would not arise. The dispute between the parties is civil in nature, when the alleged agreement between the parties cannot be directed to be performed and/or enforced, the -5- CRL.P No. 5897 of 2017 question of filing a criminal proceedings would not arise. In this regard, he relies upon a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of VIRENDER SINGH V/S. LAXMI NARAIN [(LAWS (DLH)- 2006-11-198] more particularly para 12 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"12. So, if the maxim in pari delicto etc., were to apply, the complainant/respondent No.1 could not have a claim for recovering the Rs.80,000/- paid by way of illegal gratification for securing a job for his nephew in the Haryana Police. It is here that the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 pressed into service the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 11 of the decision of Sita Ram v. Radha Bai (AIR 1968 SC 534) (supra), to submit that there are three exceptional circumstances to which the maxim does not apply and that the present case falls in one of those. The three classes of cases being:- (a) Where the illegal purpose has not yet been substantially carried into effect before it is sought to recover money paid or goods delivered in furtherance of it; (b) Where the plaintiff is not in pari delicto with the defendant; (c) Where the plaintiff does not have to rely on the illegality to make out his claim. If the facts of the present case are examined, it would be immediately clear that it does not fall in any of these three classes of cases. The first class of cases deals with situations or agreements where the object is unlawful. In the present case "securing a job in the Haryana Police for the nephew" is not an unlawful object. What is unlawful is the consideration paid for it. The consideration having already been paid, the illegality stood completed on the part of the respondent No.1. And, since the -6- CRL.P No. 5897 of 2017 respondent No.1 would have to rely upon this illegality to make out his claim or enforce the same, this case does not also fall within the third class of cases mentioned above. This leaves us with the second class of cases where the parties are not in pari delicto. In Sita Ram v. Radha Bai (supra) the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the parties were not "in pari delicto"
or, to put it differently, "in equal fault". And, in that backdrop, the Supreme Court observed that it is settled law that where the parties are not in pari delicto, the less guilty party may be able to recover money paid or property transferred, under the contract. It was further held that such a possibility could arise in three situations:-
(1) The contract may be of kind which has been made illegal by statute in the interest of a particular class of persons of whom the plaintiff is one; (2) The plaintiff must have been induced to enter into the contract by fraud by strong pressure; (3) The defendant is under a fiduciary duty to the plaintiff and it is in connection with this fiduciary relationship that moneys have come into his hands as proceeds of a transaction albeit illegal. None of these three situations arise in the present case. In any event, the parties in the present were pari delicto so, no investigation into whether the any of these three situations arise is called for. The Supreme Court decision in Sita Ram v. Radha Bai (supra) is on a different footing.
There the parties were not in pari delicto and the case fell under the third situation of the fiduciary relationship referred to above."
7. On the basis of the above, he submits that the above petition is required to be allowed and the criminal proceedings are required to be quashed. -7- CRL.P No. 5897 of 2017
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 by relying upon a decision of this Court passed in the case of SMT.CHANDANA YALAMANCHILI v/s STATE BY SHO OF SANJAYANAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE in Crl.P.No.1662/2018 dated 28.03.2018 submits that this Court had in a similar matter dismissed an application for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that custodial interrogation is necessary and as such the said decision would be equally apply to the present matter. He also relies upon the decision of this Court in the case of SRI.GANGADHARA MURTHY (COMMON PETITIONER) v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MYSORE SOUTH POLICE, MYSORE AND OTHERS dated 24.04.2014 in Crl.P.No.4827/2013 AND CONNECTED MATTERS to contend that the complainant is a habitual offender and the accused has received moneys from various other persons promising to make available jobs and this aspect -8- CRL.P No. 5897 of 2017 would have to be enquired into and at this stage this Court could not interfere and quash the criminal proceedings.
9. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the complaint is at the initial stage and under the process of investigation and as such requires investigation and this Court ought not to quash the proceedings.
10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the papers.
11. Admittedly, the complaint of the complainant is that the complainant made payment of a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the accused on the promise made by the accused that he would secure a job for the son of Complainant. Admittedly, the complainant was also a former Government Officer, a public servant who has retired from his service. The object and purport of the bargain entered into between the -9- CRL.P No. 5897 of 2017 petitioner and respondent was to secure the job for complainant's son dehors the applicable procedures that is contrary to law and contrary to the applicable qualifications and/or requirement mechanism at CFTRI. The amount which had been made payment of by the complainant to the accused was in the nature of bribe so as to secure a job for his son contrary to applicable law.
12. Though the Trial Court has dismissed the suit for recovery of money on the ground that the agreement itself was contrary to the public policy and of violative of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the matter in issue in the present case is as regards the criminal offence which has been committed. The petitioner by relying on the decision of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court would contend that the agreement being contrary to Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is not enforceable and therefore a criminal proceedings
- 10 -
CRL.P No. 5897 of 2017 cannot be initiated. Thereby, there is an admission on the part of the petitioner-accused that there is an agreement which is contrary to law and violation of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Therefore, leading to the inevitable conclusion that there is an illegal bargain which was entered into between the petitioner and respondent. If that to be so, I am of the considered opinion that extraordinary powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot be exercised so as to quash the proceedings at this stage. The matter would require investigation as to who are all involved in job scam and their respective roles etc., since prima facie there is an admission of an offence by both the parties.
13. In view of the said admission, it is clear that not only the bribe taker but the bribe giver would also have to be prosecuted. There being a clear and categorical statement made by the respondent-complainant that the complainant had made a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-
- 11 -
CRL.P No. 5897 of 2017 for securing a job for his son which is ordinarily not available to his son. A bribe admittedly been given, I am of the considered opinion that necessary prosecution would have to be initiated against the respondent-complainant since if not for the people like complainant who are willing to give a bribe, there would be no person like the petitioner taking such bribe to make available jobs. The aspect of job scams has come before this Court and several Courts across the Country which is resulted in several criminal proceedings. I am of the considered opinion that necessary proceedings ought to be initiated against the complainant and as such learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to bring the above order to the notice of the Director of Public Prosecution/Jurisdictional Police to initiate appropriate proceedings against the complainant.
- 12 -
CRL.P No. 5897 of 2017
14. The petition stands dismissed. The investigation to continue as aforementioned and complete expeditiously.
Sd/-
JUDGE NC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6