Karnataka High Court
Sri Mahendra Jain Ias vs Smt Jija Madhavan Harisingh Ips on 15 November, 2010
Author: N.Kumar
Bench: N.Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 157" DAY 0}?' NOVEMBER,
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE3 N
AND
THE HONBLE MR.JUsTIc1%j'A1iAgLiNAC_A12;AJ "
WA NO. 3101 0'I~"--1f2:0~~1o
BFJI WEEN;
SR1 MAHENDRA JAIN, 1A3' A
8/0 GHEVARCHAND, " _ -
AGEDABOU'F49;1YEAR«S % _
NOW WORKI.1\EG A__s;;. ' _ .
DEVELOPMENT_COMM'ISS§A1ONE;R,V",
sP:«:cL%xIAA4..1$C*QN'C;~Agjyj ZONE' " ''
NAv1MuM'BA;1l_
34,PD'¢_1VIELLO _
MUMBA1 «A09. -- V "
~ APPELLANT
(By A.B.v Ac.£iAF{YA'sR.c0UNs1e:L FOR
* _ SE31 M»./1._ CH'IDANAN--BAYYA, ADV. .}
'1. 'sMT.;fi.;3jA'A1MADHAvAN HARESINGH, 195
'«DIR_1f"£CTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
HOME GUARDS & FIRE FORCE,
AA _ BANGALORE.
1%-IE SUB--1NSPECTOR OF POLECE
8:1 STATEON HOUSE OFFICER
SJ PARK POLICE STATION.
BANGALORE) --. 550 002. __
. RESPONDENTS
{By SR1 NT NANAIAH 8: ASSTS. FOR R1,
SR1 K. KRISHNA, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER' " V
THE KARNATAKA mos coURr"Ac~r. PRAYiNG«._TQ'*SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED EN THE~V§FRl'l'.._P'F3'l"i'F1Ql'J__N17.
3365/2009 DATED 02/07/20 10.
THIS WRIT APPEAL coix./fiR_Q on EfoR.rié'R1}r:.H"G.lllrmsll'
DAY, N KUMAR 3., DELIVERED FOLLOWING: fg
The appellant h.§islV_ir1V' appeal the order
passed by__.th'e Juldvgefldeclining to quash the
FIR lodged :__h_im__ jlbyiivther first respondent.
quashing of the FIR on the
ggroélpipnduthatl as a whole, would not constitute any
case against the accused: allegations
are so absurd and inherently improbable on
thebasvis no prudent person can never reach a just
Acon.clu'-sion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
l' agaixn.st the accused and also on the ground that it is a case
\/
3
of abuse of process of law by the first respondent who is
holding a high post in the Police Department.
3. In order to appreciate these contentiorlsii it "be _ i
necessary to have a look at the uridisp'uted--«pfactslV:ol'7 _th_e"'case
which have given rise to this appeal.:__ it
The appellant is an l}'LS:.CffiC€r" thelvllrelevant it
point of time, was worliirlg asl'Sccreta'ry._ to the"G--oijre1*nment,,
Department of Industrielsllaridfisl, Textiles and
Mines) in Karnatalga. i:nvv'Vadditional charge
as the of Mysore Minerals
Limited, ll IPS officer and at the
relevaht working as the Chairman and
Managing--Directcr l%.'[3:lfs;»sore Minerals Limited prior to the
appoinmierat (3.7. appellant in the said post as additional
'A charge: l\IoW«..she is working as Director General of Police,
Home G~Liards."aiid Fire Force.
4f There were several complaints against the
l' --.,func.tioning of Mysore Minerals Limited (hereinafter referred
LL/,
'" 4
to as the 'I\/IML'), more particularly, in the matter of
allotment of mines to various companies and individuals.
There were also aliegations that on account of
decisions of the previous Managing Directors, _
undergone huge loss. In View of the ._
the Government decided to it
Commissioner of inquiry under
Act, 1952 for conducting the on
the affairs of the was
appointed by the into those
allegations. in this regard
on 22~7--2fi)4'{;.)éi_"--.V notification referred in
generai to « 'tone of the subject matter of
reference"V--\2vas 'i\J/i1\/IL. However, the Government.
waspgjpfnot continue the Commissioner of Inquiry
hepadfedudhyi§u_stice iHJ'tfI..Bhat and therefore, his term came to
Vpb"l'-hereafter, the Government decided to refer to
en'd.F .,
I"Io'n'b1ev'Lo1f:ayukta under Section 7(2A) of the Karnataka
Lolaayulxta Act, 1984 for investigation and submit a report
G' on the various issues. The Karnataka Lokayukta inturn
it//'
5
appointed a sub--committee consisting of three members
headed by Mr. R L Gaikwad to inquire into the matterand to
investigate and submit a report to the
commercial decisions taken. The said H
required to collect the necessary details. repovrt
to the Lokayukta. .V ._ , ._
5. The said Gaikwad comrnitteeprepared"ajforrnail.
in the said format, MML was called upon'-tolliiturnish Various
particulars required forfthe Otsubmitting report to
the Lokayukta. It is at was working
as the Chairn1ar;Vp:pand;=Mana*§;ing of MML. It was
brougijt to the Lokayukta wants Various
details 'such as-. tota1-- dqiiantity produced, total quantity
1'ern;o\ied,, totali.r_V_Vduantity sold of each of the Inine--wise
beplongziiig The appellant issued a direction to the
and the Manager (Mines) to prepare a
.sought~i;3y the committee. The said Gaikwad Committee
detailegl' '1"ep'ort and submit the same to the Lokayukta as
8'
the detail quantity of mineral removed from
\i,/'"
6
Thimmappanagundi Iron Ore Mines and Subbarayanahalli
Iron Ore Mines. Form No.8 which was prescribed was sent
to the Sr.Manager (Mines) for the purpose of preparation of
the report and sent it to the Head Office to send for
Lokayukta for enquiry. The Mines Manager _
report in respect. of Thimmappanagundi .,
However, While sending the report
mistake, he typed it as Subharayanahaili
place of Thimmappanagundi the said
error is a clerical e1'r0;r;~...p_ Iron Vt)re Mines
was not subjected to s.Vijayar1agar
Minerals Pvt.}...t<'l..¥{hereinafte.r':called:"'t}1e_'EfVl\/IPL'). in case of
Thimrrivappanagluicfrdiié'iIro'n.,:Ore' Mines, there is an agreement
with andV"'ac'coIding_§l4y Mines Manager supplied the
information so' Aasuto send it to the Gaikwad committee and
'' thedllinforrnation furnished therein is correct. The said error
the Head Office before sending it to the
Lok«aylu1'{ta., :"The said information was sent for the purpose of
investigation. On the basis of the said report, G-aikwad
.,,com_1:§11ttee came to the conclusion that the appellant is
7
responsible for causing financial loss of Rs.2l9,56,81,974/-
and the first respondent was responsible for eijatasing
financial loss to the tune of Rs.
Accordingly, he submitted a report to the fork V'
further action. A copy of the saldWVre'port'-.yWas.:sent_xtoV"thé
appellant for comments. For theA:'firstV_Atime'i
came to know the error whichihas occurred the it
word ' Subbarayanahaiii of~r..'ffhin1«n'1'appanagundi'
which was not Within tirne earlier. On
coming to knciw' the' the letter was
written on Add1.Registrar of
Lokayt1kta_A'Vth'_at inadvertent, the word
Mines was wrongly mentioned
instead Iron Ore Mines' by oversight.
The.§app.ellant" snbmitted an elaborate report to the
pointing out that there was no supply from
iron Ore Mines to VMPL. The Lokayukta
after co_nsi-cillering the report including the objections filed by
the appellant, was satisfied that the error pointed out by
O' was inadvertent and deleted the figures pertaining to
R\/
8
the said Subbarayanahalli Iron Ore Mines. However, even
after such deletion, Lokayukta found both the appellant as
well as the first respondent guilty of causing financial loss
to the tune of several hundred crores. It is thereafterl'figrst
respondent has filed the complaint on 9--2--2009g_a1'iegi'ng: H
the appellant and one Pattanashetty .,
submitted a report to the Gaikwatzll
the first respondent has caused
it is alleged that the report submitted loy"Raju alfgaloricated
document. The V I"said .v't'F{laj.ul; lll:linsteadlVVl"o'f.ll writing
Thimmappanagundi Iron falsely Written
Subbarayanahalili -ironfgl The said documents
'3Pl3eal1'.._Ato_ fraudulent and dishonest
intention.'=-t:_lg'1'l1olugh lisasidlllcomplaint ought to have been
fi}.egd.;jgat Ashokl"N_agVar i3:'olice Station, she has filed the same
police station for registration of the
the appellant. The police at S.J Park
polirse s.tati-ru)«n,Alin order to oblige the first respondent who was
Director General of Police, registered a criminal
in Crime No.5/2009 against the appellant for the
M/l,r
9
offences punishable under Sections 406.420, 466, 469, 471,
122 8: 121B of EPC without application of mind and without
noticing that the allegations in the said complaint do not
make out any cognizable offence which is a
precedent for registering a case. Therefore, H
contends that registration of the criminal hi1n'i's.,
an abuse of process of law. The
absurd and improbable. The readirigrof the
not make out any case muchllesscognizahleiagainst
him to register a criminal caséiafigi ltfhereforevVthevfappellant
preferred the writ petition'. seeking
quashing of the
Jlidge after referring to the
Variousljtidgmenutls Court relied on by the parties,
was; of the investigation having not yet commenced.
themcovmplaint, the appellant cannot request
fltovilexarnine the matter with reference to the
are produced by him and therefore the
proceuedings cannot be quashed. After investigation, if the
10
material collected by the investigation agency is found to be
wanting nevertheless the case is registered. i.t is always open
for the appellant to seek appropriate remedy. But however
at the inception, the appellant cannot seek the
proceedings and therefore he rejected the 'l H
Aggrieved by the same, appellant is before us. V
7. Sri B V Acharya, learned
the appellant submits that police
and collecting the materials offinvestigation
would arise only if the a cognizable
offence. If the azllegations linl--._the_Ht::omplaint. are taken
as true', it commission of any offence. In
those question of police officer
investigating matter, collecting the material, then
to find out whether a case is made out,
a as held by the learned Single Judge.
Second..l'y; contended that the entire case revolves around
one dfocdment. which is dated 3-8-2007. From the material
' aforesaid, it was an inadvertent clerical error. On realising
'xx/f
1.2
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent
submits that it is well settled that the Courts shotil--::i not
interfere at the stage of investigation. The Courts&.sht)iil:tig:not
embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability o:i: V'
or otherwise of the allegations made~inthe_" if
either under Article 482 or 386 Zlhasifito
sparingly and with circumspewctiozn arid farest hoist»
rare cases. in that docnment, the coniplaigntfilodged by
the first respondent. if a cognizable
offence of forgery " 'document and
consequentlyigtig rezporjif cause of loss to
the MML to: iivhich finding seriously
affectsher ._ it is for the investigating agency
to invesltigate. and find out the correctness of
thegggallegations therein and if the investigating agency
toulsiibstantiate the allegations, certainly the
the benefit, but at the threshold, at the
inc<eption,._'filing of the writ petition to scuttle the
Ainvestigaticin is improper and illegal and cannot be
it/'
13
countenanced. Therefore, he submits that the learned Single
Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition.
9. In View of the aforesaid facts and C0r1txE3VI1'_[ii'O.I_v1S.
points that arise for our consideration in this appeal«lare__:: ;_ if
{1} Whether the allegations made.,in_u_th_e lR_even
if they are taken ._ the I face '~vValcu'e.__:an'd_V
accepted in their e:=V1t1rety',;d"o_ not .p'mgn;_;fac_1eA'
constitute any offence ;'o1'~'rna'k_e"* out a. 'caise
against the accused?7.. " " ' '
{2} Whether the allegations nzadetn the are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the
basis of:"which..n'o=prud'ent personcan. never
reach 9.. :"_]'1.1S".'_'. eo.n"c-lusion that there is
sufficient ground' ;'to__ "procee_d against the
accused?_._ V --.*
T' *{3}f,Wheftlher'"initiation of FIR is an abuse of
' V 'pro-cgess oflaw in the facts and circumstances
of this. gca.se'?,
pertis"al"Vof the complaint at Annexure 'B'
"the complaint is giving false information
records provided by public senrants one
Mahlendradain, one S.S.Pattanshetti and one Raju, then
A llllanager of SIOM all conspiring together, to cause
hann, loss of reputation and mental agony and annoyance
V' . M;--S§B3i.1ildi--ng
18
Audit Para and the reply furnished is enclosecl to
this Note. H
MANAGER_"{£i'IN-- .. j 7 _ V.
Thereafter it appears that they.,n»Qtieea_1"that:
"Subbarayanahalli Iron (3I'€3:; l\/llI':1fi"r.3'":. its, T. T
should be Thimmappanagtidililron 'Q;-:3' -
Therefore iziimediatelyllaaper Annexare MD
of MML wrote a letter 05.U8ii_2(')08V}te the
Additional RegiatI*ar Lekayuktha.
which is se1f~explanat0ry., jl"e:ad_el nfiiler:
l*vI3,r.=;o:e 1\.iiI;1e'ralSL"wLiiI1ited
__.{G 0vfei'Jf_1n'j1ent_:of l£a1*natVa1<_a Undertaking)
Regd.Officei»3Q, Maliatrna Ga;-1dtl'1i 'floacl, Bangalore-560 O0}.
j:g1cx':v<1§3'4s:i.2432 1*fa'x:vOVE5O%25_E>83 1172 Grams:"I\/§yminera1"
he --. _ AV j;i>1-lone255393-73. 25580374, 25580375
NO.MML/_MKT/LQKélYlJK'lfia)'£337/2008--09/1650 05.08.2008
The Additinrial Registirarvnf EInquiriesw2
Loldgayuktha "
. ji3A_i\: C}/%LGRE---.560 001.
Stib:lrnrestigati0n into the matter of illegal mining operation
*~ Vin the State by Lokayukta.
Please refer to your letter
N0.C0n1pt/LOK/BCD/89/2007/ARF~2. dated
\\./
19
I6/18.06.2007, wherein you had asked us to furnish
the inforrnation under Sinurnber 5 i.<-3. quantity of Iron
ore suppiied to M/s.\/MPL for the period
01.01.2000 to 22.07.2000 in Proforma~V. Acggi}iiV:i;§1y;'
we had furnished the requisite information rlI_T;"?----3'r0Ai;or%fr1a 4'" d 0-
V under Annexure »-1 Vide this OffiC€.~}C{;tCih',O'f',:€VCI1Vu
nurnber dated 03.08.2007. Whiieusehdirigtiie--.a1'oreVsa.id '
information, it was inadvertentiyi' rnentioned "
"Subba1'ayar1ahal1i iron Ore 'Mines oft
Thimmappanagudi iron 01'ev'n'Mi'riv:=,s" We.
therefoi-0, now retjdest. hii2.diy to" read as
Thimmappanagudi instead of
Subbamyanahalli iron.:._C).re --. itfiowever, while
forwardi1ig;' tr) even No. dated
0'7.ii Iron ore suppiied to
M/s.VMPL for theii. ' }d:e3i:'i'od""-.t»'i'ro1i:« '3'i'.§O 1 .2000 to
22.07.2006 is.provided':fro:n"Ti§)'i'i/I.' 7 Further, during
that period any quantity
from s1o1\/H,o_V1\/1151;: ' '
Tfiérimg = ..
' V Yours iai.' --. V V V 'V
For '1\/JYSORE MENERALS LEMETED
4"-W.i\i2§§;£.N§"..DiREcToR. \XL/~
2]
15. After receipt of Annexure 'G' they corrected the report
excluding the amount: pertaining to "Subbarayanahaiii Iron
Ore Mines", the extract of which is as under:
S1. L Name of the Period Amount of ioss ~_...._}§e.fe1=e';1C:'e. to
No Managing (Rs .) _ K V _ h 1,
Director L" ' t '
{Sri/Smt.} V
1 B.Urnesh ms 1999-2000 6,9c)',56','1'38'--<1W;« :'111Ax":
2 I.R.Peruma1,lAS 200192003 5,02,60:,_31.:2 1. * 'ff--11'13~
3 K.S.Manjui1ath, 2002-2004 T4,04,6__6,93s =
ms = = = * = «
4 D.S.Ashwath, 2003-2005 '9f6";t23,89,953'»w.ej; 1.113 V
ms "
5 Jeeja Madhavan 2004-2007 1vi"'299.,'4é;'72,022 115:
Ha1'iS1ngh, IFS = " ' " '~
6 Mahendra Jam, 2006-206? F§19,51s;0's,1»i.9'74 NF
7 G.V.Konguwad_,, 11G
ms . --. . -
Account
8 Company's "'iO'i75.,.21,83O 1111
iTota1: """ " "'6*?e'2'Vi32,85,951
16. From afoiiesaid e:fit1'aCt.s, it is clear the first
rejsgaondevnii-1:.is said to b'e.t1_1_e cause for MML incurring losses
'[(31v"'£hC:V{L'uif1§B oi'.Rsi35{L92,00,967/~. whereas the appellant
was the--._V.'ca'i1:§_e.__ the MML incurring a loss of
Rs--259.7Zi';3O;~5?,e17.".: It included the ioss in respect of
4.".St1bha1'a3f.anahal1igudi Iron Ore Mine. Once it was brought
"'n'ot.1ce that the said statement. pertains to
'N/_
23
irnplicates both the appellant and the respondent. it is
absurd to think that when a person fabricates a dociornent
including in the said document the
defrauded MML to any extent, at any rate
is noticed, appropriate steps are:-'taken
mistake. The mistake is rectified.
is given to the parties. It engt'-.§hé;v'éo::1;§1aint"V V
lodged on 09.01.2009 is a bonafide-one'.
59. That apart. complaint, the
allegations ii§p*'rea:d.' as whole, "clo:"n"ot..constitute any offence
either agailristjiitheh person. Though the
fléused choicest expressions
such conspiracy, no concrete
allegations"~ag'ai.ns--t thelappellant. suggesting commission of
ar1y'offe11ce is rnade------out. On a plain reading of the complaint
0 allegations and the averments made therein
lobe t'1'u'e?fon5'their face value do not reveal the commission of
any o.tl'e_nee whatsoever by the appellant. The said proforma
invoice is an information furnished by the Company on a
V'precl1Auest. made by the Lokayukta who is empowered to
24
investigate into the illegal mining and other connected
matters which included the functioning of I\/IML, a
Government of Karnataka undertaking. As is clear from
Annexure it is the Manager who has prepared'.thehsaid
statement with the aid of his officials and the booiis H
in MML and has su'omit.ted the said -«
that. has crept in the preparation
pertained to "Thimmappanagudi Iror'1r_iv(i)re
typing, they have typed it as
Iron Ore Mines". ti{at""it was a
typographical error/ have bflen
taken as per dated. and the mistake
has been ' i*ect';fie.d'.'i _w;'n.ici=2._ document is not in question.
However':s'oefore"therectification the report. did take note of
theirp'art.icu1ai*s. fptrnisiied at Annexure 'E' and on that. basis
repoi'_t*st.ated that both the appellant and the first
the cause for the Company suffering huge
1o'sses,,_" after the clarification. the same was taken into
Aconsideration and corrected in the final report. The
i' --..VV'particu}a1's furnished in Annexure has been deleted and
\/
26
Where the allegations in the First information
Report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the F. i. R. do not disclosefa
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
police officers under Section 158 [1] of th.e._Codej; V.
except under an order of a Magistrate.within.
the purview of Section 155(2) of the '
VVhere the uncontrovertedfallegatioins-: «
the FIR or complaint and the ev'idenC:e col'iectedy."fi_:
in support of the same do. not disclose S' the
commission of any offence; and"-make out-,a'=ca.s'e
against the accused. " " I "
Where, the allegations in" .,_Lhe'~-_F.i.R. do not
constitute a cogniZable_ fof'fenc.ei.,bt1t constitute
only a non--cogni;abl.e o1ffe:nc'e~, 'r1o;invcst.igat.ion
is permitted.__by :31' police 'officer Wiizhout an order
of a Magistrate as iconte'n1pl--atc-die' under Section
155[2]"of_«.the- i
Where made in the F.1.R. or
conipiaint " are = .s"'_o absurd and inherently
,i_mprot;able..on°.the basis of which no prudent
person canyvever reach a just conclusion that
A V' there" is suffijcilent ground for proceeding against
t.he.accused.
* there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any'_of the provisions of the Code or the
'concerned Act
(under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted] to the institutiori and
A continuance of the proceedings and/ or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the
27
oncerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is rnanifes_ti.y~.._
attended with mala fide and/ or whe.re'.the'; V.
proceeding is maliciously instituted _-'--.vith" *' '
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeanee..VV0n:_ithe T'
accused and with a view t_o....s_pitefhirri»due*
private and personal grudge. ' " ~ V '
22. Following the aforesaid judgjrrielit,
Court again in the case of é§ta{.g Bihar V
and Another rep0rt€(i;l.1'?1/'[2QOé)life':SClC._248 heidilat. para--14
as under:
"i-4. When' factual noted above is
considered of legal principles set
conclusion is that certainly
rnala 4'flCl<3$VV\/l'\;:'cf"i-16:3' apart from the applicability
of 'Section 'Code. it is no doubt true that
jg .;it_ the .th,resholc1.l-interference by exercise of Section
ofthe has to be in rare Cases. The present
case 'appears to be of that nature and falls under
categlor§fV'v{'7] indicated in State of Haryana and Ors.
v.v..13h.ajfan Lal and Ors. (1992 Supp (1) sec
~.335]:i992SCC[Cri)426. The contiriuance of the
" proceedings by the prosecution would amount to
abuse of the process of law. The criminal
proceedings in the Court of learned Chief Judicial
28
Magistrate, Begusarai in PS Case No.63/£993 are
quashed. The appeal is allowed."
23. Again the Apex Court in the case of
Others Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav and Another' re_por'ted-
(2009) 9 SCC 682 reiterating theia1"oreysai_d pvri:ne'ip.lles.:lr1eVlcl bj' l
as under at para l\los.20, 21 and A it
20. The complainant in lh"1sTcomplaint_R1'reely¥§used
choicest: expressions such " lllV"'fraud, lveolltision,
conspiracy and cheating lc_t;:}"Aibt%.'t not make any
concrete allegationfl'~w.ag.ainst&". appellants
suggesting'cornmissio;'1 any-offenee. That a plain
reading"'ot°.«.thev- the allegations
and pave17ni'e1".ts. be true on their lace
Va_lue_ ea'fi.c:;.,V_:evea1,:"tag commission of any offence
whlatsoevler who were only taking
stepslto_i~ea1i:ce__ the amount due to t.he bank from the
__;borrowerl'a-n_(lii1 the process encashed the FDRS
olhflered" thelllllguaraiitors as security for the
" the loan. What is the crime they have
h"--.corn1nit--teAclV'even if they did not proceed against the
""'-.hyp'othelcated properties before realizing the FDRS
oltered by guarantors? Where is the
I zrrrisappropriation of money? Whom did they Cheat'?
it/r
32
26. Thereafter they have specifically referred to Section
464 making a false document, Section 420 IPC the"-.term
"fraud" and the expression defraud and then
Conclusion that the avernients in the co'm_p1a'inti'afte-rid
presumed to be true do not maf.<emo'ut any _.offen_ce 't1Tnde--r
Sections 420, 467, 471 and 504 of.the.A_i5en2ii'{jode,
technicaiiy show the ingredi.en~!1_s of" offeneccs ""Wrongfu1"f
restraint under Section .341 and hL1frtv*_1.ndv:§:r Section
323 I.P.C.
27. As against learned Counsel
for the 'sozigiit to rely judgment of the
Apex Courtzvvfinwthei» of hfiihar and another Vs.
Shri P.P.SI1a:rna Vand'*a:1:other»..reported in AIR 1991 so
1260.
"(£3 i~c_¢i}ist1:t1ti§"h'oeindia, Art. 226 -- Mala fide um
' _Crin1in_ai.'proceedings -- Petition against -- Mere
._aVi1egatiodiis of7""ma1a fide against inforrnant and
iriycstigatin.--g officer -- Cannot be basis for quashing
proceedings ~ Fact that investigating officer white
"ac.t_ingNbona fide rules out certain documents as
S '~_fir--re.ievant M Not a ground to assume that he acted
imala tide."
34
according to its whim or Caprice. But at the same time
where the allegations made in the F IR even if they are "taken
at their face value and accepted in their entiretj.ddo:'*.rio.t:
prima facie constitute an offence or make out it
the accused, this extraordinary to it
prevent the abuse of the process of
allegations made in the soAhabsurdivlvortiirihierently
improbable on th.e basis of 1'-ion lpapelrson can
never reach a just concitilisionl; is Sllf/flCi€l1l. ground
{or proceeding against:.tl'ie..a'ecVuse»d_, F IR should be
quashed. procleecling, is manifestly
attended livhere the proceeding is
rilaliciously a 'ulterior motive for wreaking
\rengearic'eLO}i with a View spite him due t;o
privgatje and pe'rsohal grudge, the case for quashing the FIR is
V' made (Sat. _
merely because the complainant freely
uses choicest; expressions borrowed from the Sections of the
AAl1idianv...i:'3ei1al Code without. a proper indication by way of
l' 'atllegations that would not result. in a case under those
it/i
36
81. In the instant case, the appellant was working as a
Secretary. The First respondent was working as Cha'ir_man
and MD of MML under him. The appellant
cadre and the first respondent to IPS cadre; M
respondent was transferred
serious allegations which were made
in respect of illegalities in ands'
the export: of Ore is conducte£l:ii14_ti1e State~of iihrnataka.
MML was also accused'""oi'laXit.yv proper action
and by their inaetiion the" for the
loss ifittelrllltransiler of the first
respondentoiit was put incharge.
It ' commission enquiry was
cozistitiited U.L.Bhat was heading the
CQI:h'Ii11E»3SiOI1 could not continue his work and thereafter the
'Goireni;r1ent«.._handed over the investigation to Lokayiikta.
.of the Lokayukta called upon the MML to
fuf1'rt1ist_i' particulars and it is in reply to said request
Annexare 'E' was sent by the officials in which the appellant
' --.._l1»as:'Ano role to play. While sending the particulars, a clerical
ll/'
37
error happened and after a year realising the niistake they
have rectified the same, but in the meanwhile an interirn
report had been prepared by what is called
Committee which acted on the earlier information V'
both the appellant as well as :the~-.tf'irst'_"areuu
involved in the loss occasioned to
Mines. But once the error to they
authorities after verification ayn.dVV:A'b.eirigL'coriv1nt?ed,Jthey have
deleted from the "final loss sustained in
respect of "SiiAbba1~ayanah:alli"iron'&C3_re...'V'.is/lines". Therefore
that interest of the first
respondent'.Vyhrgéiin that the said report
if it the finger accusing both the
appeiiant,as wel-last it is unthinkable the
aptiellant. and. Chairman and the MD as well as the
Mines could have given the information by
'V bdy-collusion, by pointing the accusing finger at
him also. ,
it Therefore it is obvious that it was a mistake which
crept. in without his knowledge and once it was brought
ll/r
39
angle at all. The learned Single Judge has proceeded on the
presumption that the complaint discloses a cogrfiléable
offence and therefore the investigation into the.~«~offe:i_c'eV.I'
necessary. It is after collecting inforrn_atio.n':.A.l.if
investigating agency finds that therewislno
open to them not to proceed furthervéarid'.therefore':l'1c"Wa.s.'olf V "
the View that at this stage this could---- not interfere;
33. As set out if is absurd and if
the allegations rearl as a any offence
at all and if it ol": abose f)1'ocess of law and the
Court. declirfeis it would be a case of
failure :5. an obligation of its
1*esponsiEbili't5i which power is conferred on
this Court bo'i;h.V"un.VdVer Section 482 Cr.P.C. as well as under
of the" Constitution of lndia. We are satisfied
'V-._froxr1" thevv.afoi5esVaid. facts that it is a case which calls for our
interference':'Hence We pass the following:
ORDER
" ragga) Writ Appeal is allowed. 40 {ii} The order passed by the learned Singie Judge is hereby se1:--as1'de.
(iii) The FIR lodged by the first resp0r1de.I'it"\«fi_t;h: _ jurisdictional police as per An11exur€;-sVV'A'e'dar:d are hereby quashed. -
Parties to bear their own costs] 7ss;{g{3U9@E §?'/J"r//