Karnataka High Court
Manjunatha Rao K vs State Of Karnataka on 9 January, 2023
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1947 OF 2022
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8337 OF 2022
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1947 OF 2022
BETWEEN
MANJUNATHA RAO K
SON OF LATE SRINIVASA RAO K,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 169,
GREEN PARK EXTENSION,
JAL MAHAL RESORT ROAD,
BHUGATHAHALLI,
MYSURU - 570 028 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI KUMAR M.N., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH MANDYA WEST POLICE STATION,
MANDYA SUB DIVISION,
MANDYA DISTRICT 571401
2. SRI N RANGASWAMY
SON OF NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 97,
2
NORTH OF 1ST STAGE,
GAYATHRIPURAM,
MYSURU 570019
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R1
SRI N. RANGASWAMY, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE FIR REGISTERED
AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY MANDYA WEST POLICE STATION,
IN CR.NO.27/2022 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 196, 197, 198, 199, 420, 464, 467, 468,
469, 471, 499, 503 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3(1)(q), 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s), 3(1)(u) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT VIDE ANNEXURE-A
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE V ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT MANDYA AT MANDYA. B. SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2022 PASSED BY THE HONBLE
V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT MANDYA AT
MANDYA IN PCR NO.2/2022 REFERRING THE CASE UNDER
SECTION 156(3) OF CRPC, 1973 BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT
OF POLICE, MANDYA FOR INVESTIGATION AND SUBMIT A
REPORT VIDE ANNEXURE-B.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8337 OF 2022
BETWEEN
MANJUNATHA RAO K
SON OF LATE SRINIVASA RAO K,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 169,
GREEN PARK EXTENSION,
JAL MAHAL RESORT ROAD,
BHUGATHAHALLI,
MYSURU 570028 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI KUMAR M.N., ADVOCATE)
3
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
THROUGH MANDYA WEST POLICE STATION,
MANDYA SUB DIVISION,
MANDYA DISTRICT 571401
2. SRI N RANGASWAMY
SON OF NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 97,
NORTH OF 1ST STAGE,
GAYATHRIPURAM,
MYSURU 570019
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R1
SRI N. RANGASWAMY, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO A. QUASHING FIR REGISTERED
AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY MANDYA WEST P.S., IN
CR.NO.112/2022 FOR ALEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 166, 167, 177, 182, 193, 198, 196, 191, 203, 211,
499, 500 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3(1)(p), 3(1)(q), 3(2)(vii),
3(2)(iii) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT VIDE ANNEXURE-A PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
COURT, MANDYA. B. SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
26.07.2022 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
COURT, MANDYA IN PCR.NO.3/2022 (FR.NO.4/2022)
REFERRING THE CASE UNDER SECTION 156(3) OF THE CODE
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, TO POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
MANDYA WEST POLICE STATION, MANDYA FOR INVESTIGATION
AND SUBMIT A REPORT VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 16.12.2022, THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
Crl.P.No.1947/2022 is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the FIR registered against the petitioner by Mandya West Police Station in Crime No.27/2022 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 196, 197, 198, 199, 420, 464, 467, 468, 469, 471, 499, 503 of IPC and Sections 3 (1)(q), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(u) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment Act, 2015) (herein after referred SC&ST (POA) Act pending on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Court, Mandya in PCR No.2/2022 referring the case under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.
Crl.P.No. 8337/2022 is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the FIR registered against the petitioner by Mandya West Police Station in Crime No.112/2022 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 166, 167, 177, 182, 193, 198, 196, 191, 203, 211, 499, 400, 500 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(p), 3(1)(q), 5 3(2)(vii), 3(2)(iii) of SC/ST (POA) Act pending on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Court, Mandya in PCR No.3/2022 referring the case under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for both the accused and learned HCGP for the State and respondent No.2/party-in-person. In Crl.P.No. 1947/2022
3. The case of the prosecution is it is alleged that the petitioner was posted as per Superintendent of Post Office, Mandya Division Mandya (Adhoc) on 04.9.2020. The adhoc arrangement was terminated on 02.09.2021 and he was transferred to Kodagu Division as Assistant Superintendent of Post Office. Once again on 15.09.2021 he was posted as Superintendent of Post Office Mandya Division and he was responsible for day to day activities. The respondent No.2 was appointed as Postal Assistant in 6 Mandya Division on 12.07.1999 and he has passed accountant examination and joined as Accountant at Srirangapatna Head Office on 10.06.2010 and later was transferred to Mandya Head Post Office and appointed as Accountant in Mandya Division. The petitioner is appointing and controlling authority for 'C' group employees. In terms of Rule 174 and 179 of Postal Manual Volume III read with DOPT official Memorandum bearing NO.21011/1/2005-Estt(A)(Petition-II) the official memorandum dated 14.05.2009. The petitioner maintains the APAR of the employees of the department. The complainant prepared an appeal to the Director of Postal Services, South Karnataka Region, against the adverse remarks made by the petitioner in his Annual Performance and Assessment Report, which was turned down by the non-speaking order. As such, the complainant decided to approach appropriate court and wanted to collect the concerned documents. Later, on 29.10.2021 inter-alia sought information about the copies of APAR documents 7 with office notes to the Director of Postal Service in connection with adverse entries in APAR for the year 2018- 19, 2019-20, 2020-21 which included parawise remarks report of the accused, addressed to the Director Postal Service, Bangalore. The accused being Central Public Information Officer directed the complainant to deposit Rs.14/- towards supply of documents and he has credited the same and accused supplied the information to the complainant which is legible. In the meanwhile, the complainant internally sought similar information from the Post Master General South Region, Bangalore through RTI application on 28.12.2021. There is a parawise remarks report submitted by the accused on the appeal of the complainant, addressed to the Director of Postal Service South Karnataka. Accordingly, the information was supplied on 29.01.2022/13.02.2022. The complainant reproducing the parawise remarks, where the accused on the appeal of the complainant, against his adverse entries in APAR report addressed to the Director Postal Service 8 which was numbered as Steno/Appeal/APAR/Dlgs dated 05.08.2021 wherein it is mentioned as below:-
"It may be seen that the official is not good worker. When the supervisors/officers asked to do his duties, he used to raise problems for one or the other reasons. He is not maintaining good relation with Co- official. He is in the habit of writing anonymous letters against who raises their voice, most important, since he belongs to schedule tribe community and threatened to lodge atrocity case. He is charge sheeted under Rule 14 and trial is under progress. Previously also, he appealed for revision of his APAR grading. But the same have been rejected by the Appellate Authority.
Similarly, the complainant has reproduced the para 2 of the parawise remarks of the accused on the appeal of the complainant against his adverse entries in the Annual Performance and Appraisal Report to the Director of the Postal Service of South Karnataka region which was numbered as Steno/Appeal/APAR/Dlgs dated 05.08.2021 which was supplied by the accused under RTI Act, as below:-9
"It may be seen that the official is not a good worker. When the supervisors/ officers asked to do his duties, he used to raise problems for one or the other reason. He is not maintaining good relation with co- officials. He is charge sheeted under rule 14 and trial is under Rule-14 and the trial is under progress. Previously also, he appealed for revision of his APAR grading. But the same have been rejected by the appellate authority"
4. It is further alleged that, on perusal of the above para which clearly reveals, though both the letters are one and the same, which are the parawise remarks submitted by accused to the Director of Postal Service South Karnataka region Bangalore but the contents are different, between the actual documents sent to the Director, Postal Service and document supplied to the complainant under the RTI Act. The accused required to provide actual document which was forwarded to Director Postal Service, South Karnataka Region along with appeal of the complainant. But accused with wrongful intention and to harass, humiliate the schedule caste employee has created tampered, forged, altered a fake document. If he has 10 forwarded the Director Postal Services ((DPS) South Karnataka region and supplied the fake document thereby the accused committed offences punishab under Sections 196, 197, 198, 199, 420, 464, 467, 468, 469, 471, 499 and 503 of IPC. It is further alleged that the accused has made several false, frivolous and baseless allegations which are not only false, frivolous and baseless allegations but also defamatory causing irreparable damage to the reputation of the complainant. Therefore, requests the court to take cognizance, thereby the complaint has been referred to police, inturn police registered FIR which is under challenge.
In Crl.P.No. 8337/2022
5. The case of the prosecution is that in Crl.P.No.8337/2022 that the respondent No.2, filed a private complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C against the petitioner in PC No.3/2022 and got it referred to the police under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C and inturn police registered FIR. It is alleged by him in his complaint, that 11 he belongs to member of the Schedule Tribe working as Accountant in Head Post Office, Srirangapatna and that he is having good rapport throughout his career and the accused was working in Postal Department as Superintendent of Postal Department on Adhoc basis. The complainant is also President of Bharatiya Postal Employees Union, Mandya Division and he has alleged that there was. The complainant made various complaint about rampant corruption, malpractice, abuse of power, nepotism and favoritism and mal-administration of the accused to the higher authorities and based upon the letter of the complainant, the Secretary General, BPEA 09.09.2021 to the Secretary Department of Post, New Delhi to take action against the complainant. Enraged the accused, he was keen to ruin the life and career of the complainant waited for taking revenge. The accused has filed a complaint on 23.02.2022 to the District Commissioner complaining that he received a complaint from one S.Gowda that he has given false certificate and 12 obtained a job in Postal Department belonging to besta community and the complainant did not come under the scheduled tribe category. Later the complaint has been verified and finally they came to know that it was anonymous/pseudonymous letter. Since the complainant filed complaint against accused before the court and got it referred and registered FIR, in order to pressurise the complainant to withdraw the said complaint as a revengeful act, he himself written the anonymous complaint against him, in order to insult the complainant and filed the complaint before the District Commissioner.
However, as per the guidelines, the anonymous/pseudonymous complaint, they shall not take any action against the anonymous complaint but purposely he has attended the anonymous complaint and referred the same to the District Verification Committee to verify his caste, later it was proved, he belongs to the same community. The complaint was also verified and said to have been sent to one S.Gowda which was a frivolous and 13 defamatory one for causing irreparable damage to the reputation of the complainant and before taking approval of the competant authority, the accused referred the complaint to the Verification Committee by violating the mandatory provisions, in order to harass the respondent/complainant with a wrongful intention. Thereby petitioner has committed offence alleged in the complaint, hence requests for taking investigating against the petitioner, which is under challenge.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended the petitioner is Superintendent of Postal Department and he is having authority to write the APAR of respondent No.2 and that the respondent No.2 has filed appeal to the higher authorities for expunging the remarks. The request of complainant has been sent to the Appellate Authority along with the parawise remarks where there was some deletion of the sentence from the draft letter and actual letter which was supplied to the complainant under the RTI. Subsequently, the 14 complainant sent the actual information to the complainant and he has not committed any offence. There is no intention to insult the respondent/complainant and he has not created, fabricated any documents in order to tarnish the image of the complainant or insult the Member of the SC & ST community person. Therefore, conducting investigation against petitioner is abuse of process of law, hence prayed for quashing FIR. He further contended that, during the pendency of the investigation, the complainant has received the complaint from one S.Gowda that he has fabricated the Caste Certificate for the purpose of obtaining the job. Therefore, the information given by the higher authorities, the same was referred to the District Caste Verification Committee and therefore he has not committed any offence. If any complaint received against any of the officials, his main higher authority has to investigate the same. Therefore, any such enquiry or verification made by the accused, that cannot be considered as insulting the complainant by the accused in 15 order to harass him to attract Section 3 of SC & ST (POA) Act, therefore prayed for quashing FIR.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the petitioner did commit any offence during the discharge of official duty. The sanction is required under Rule 19 of CCS (conduct) rules 1965 and the respondent requires to obtain prior permission for initiating any proceedings against the Government official. Therefore, the complaint is not sustainable and hence prayed for quashing FIR.
8. Respondent No.2 has objected the petitioner and contended that the sanction under Rule 19 of CCS (conduct) rules 1965 is applicable only while discharging official duty but not applicable for the offence committed while giving character grade for the purpose of APAR written by the petitioner against the respondent No.2 by giving less grade, purposely in order to harass. Also, the complainant has applied the copies of the report, sent by 16 the accused under RTI Act by paying necessary charges. The petitioner has supplied the information to the complainant which is different from the actual report sent by him to the higher officials, which clearly reflected in both the information obtained by the respondent from the different authorities. The accused has purposely written APAR against him. Therefore, matter requires for investigation, hence prayed for dismissing petition.
9. Respondent No.2 also contended in the second case criminal petition i.e., Crl.P.No.8337/2022 that the accused himself sent anonymous letter in order to harass the complainant stating that the caste certificate obtained by him was forged one and without referring to the higher of authority the accused referred the same to Verification Committee and without confirming letter whether it was genuine or not, but the later it was revealed the certificate is genuine letter but the complaint is anonymous letter which was written by the accused himself, as he has purposely harassed the respondent/complainant. 17 Therefore prayed for dismissing both the petitions. Respondent No.2 further contended that the petitions are not maintainable without obtaining any sanction, filing the petition or quashing the FIR does not arise, therefore petitions are not maintainable. The allegations made against the petitioner clearly attracts Section 3 of SC& ST (POA) Act, therefore matter requires to be investigated, hence prayed for dismissing the petition.
10. Per conta, learned HCGP objected the petition and contended that the matter requires to be investigated and at this FIR stage it cannot be quashed, as there are various documents to be verified by the police during the investigation, hence prayed for dismissing the petition.
11. Having heard the arguments and perused the records, the case of the respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.1947/2022 in nutshell is that the respondent No.2 is Accountant in Post Office where the accused is Superintendent of Post Office, Mandya. The accused said 18 to have written the APAR of respondent No.2 by giving lesser grade and respondent No.2 filed an appeal to the higher authorities against the remarks and for expunging of the remarks. The accused said to have sent the report to the higher officials, where the accused has made some remarks against respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 has sought the said information by filing an application under RTI Act. The accused supplied the para wise remarks to the respondent No.2, which is altogether different from the copies of the remarks obtained by respondent No. 2 from the higher officials. Therefore, he has contended there is difference in the information given by him and intentionally to harass respondent No.2 and insult him. Therefore, he has contended the accused attempted to tarnish the image of members of the SC&ST person for creating the document, producing the fake document, giving the false information, therefore matter requires for investigation.
19
12. Per contra the contention of the petitioner counsel is that the APAR written by the accused on the official capacity while discharging the official duty on the administration side. Therefore, before filing the complaint, respondent No.2 required to obtain sanction under Rule 19 of CCS (conduct) rules 1965 but no such sanction is obtained, therefore complaint cannot be proceeded, hence liable to be quashed. It is admitted fact, that both the respondent No.2 and accused were Central Government Employees where the accused is Superintendent of Post Office Mandya Division, Mandya, where the respondent No.2 is Accountant in Srirangapatna Head Office. It is also an admitted fact, the petitioner was authority who has given the rank in the annual report of the respondent No.2 as grade 6.2 for the period from 04.09.2020 to 31.03.2021 for a period of 6 months and he has stated "need to focus on official work and improve co-ordination with co-officials". In order to expunge the said remarks respondent No.2 filed an appeal to the higher authorities 20 and the higher authority sought parawise remarks from the petitioner. Accordingly, he said to have sent parawise remarks to the Superior Officials where he has stated in the draft report dated 05.08.2021 stating as under;
"It may be seen that the official is not good worker. When the supervisors/officers asked to do his duties, he used to raise problems for one or the other reason. He is not maintaining good relationship with co- officials. He is charge sheeted under Rule 14 and the trial is under progress. Previously also, he appealed for revision of his APAR grading. But the same have been rejected by the appellate authority."
The respondent No.2 further submits these documents are supplied by the petitioner under the RTI Act but the said report is not the actual report, which was sent by the accused to the Appellate Authority, where it was altogether different. He has obtained the copy from the higher officials which was produced in Annexure "O" where it was referred as under;
21
"It may be seen that the official is not a good worker. When the supervisors/officers asked to do his duties, he used to raise problems for one or the other reasons. He is not maintaining good relation with co- officials. He is in habit of writing anonymous letters against who raise their voice. Most importantly, since he belongs to ST community and is threatening to lodge atrocity case. He is charge sheeted under Rule 14 and the trial is under progress. Previously also, he appealed revision of his APAR grading. But the same have been rejected by the appellant authority."
Herein this case, the above said underlined 2 sentences, these sentences were not supplied to respondent No.2 by the petitioner. Therefore he lodged the complaint for manipulating the documents and making malicious allegations against respondent No. 2. In this regard, it is an admitted fact, the copy supplied to respondent No.2 by petitioner is out of the draft letter which was Annexed as Annexure - "S" whereas the actual letter sent by the petitioner was Annexed "O" where he has given adverse remarks against respondent No.2.
22
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner, brought to the notice, that after knowing the copy of the letter, information supplied to the respondent by the accused was a draft letter. Therefore, they have sent one more actual copy to the respondent No.2. Therefore, it is contended there is no offence committed by the petitioner in this regard. The learned counsel brought to the notice that the letter dated 14.02.2022 that the petitioner has sent information to respondent No.2 that copy supplied to him was a draft copy, which was sent by oversight. Therefore he has sent the actual copy to him which is also not in dispute. It is also not in dispute, the remarks made by the petitioner against the respondent No.2 has been supplied to respondent No.2 and the previous copy supplied was only a draft copy. That apart, the allegations made by the petitioner that the revision filed by respondent No.2, in the previous occasion under Rule 14, the trial was under
progress and revision of his APAR grading has been rejected by the appellate authority. The documents also 23 produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein, which all goes to show that they the information given by the petitioner to the respondent No.2 under the RTI Act is only a draft letter, but not actual letter and immediately it was supplied to him by stating that the old one was given by oversight. However, whether that itself is constituting any offence against petitioner or not requires to be seen.
That apart, the act done by the accused/petitioner while discharging official duty as higher officer of respondent No.2 and also as Central Information Officer under the RTI Act. Therefore, before filing the complaint against petitioner, the respondent No.2 requires to obtain the sanction under Rule 19 of CCS (conduct) rules 1965 page no. 19
19. VINDICATION OF ACTS AND CHARACTER OF GOVERNMENT SERVANT: ` (1) No Government servant shall, except with the previous sanction of the Government, have recourse to any Court or to the Press for the vindication of any official act which has been the subject-matter of adverse criticism or an attack of a defamatory character.24
Provided that if no such sanction is received by the Government servant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of his request by the Government, he shall be free to assume that the permission as sought for has been granted to him.
(2) Nothing in this rule shall be deemed to prohibit a Government servant from vindicating his private character or any act done by him in his private capacity and where any action for vindicating his private character or any act done by him in private capacity is taken, the Government servant shall submit a report to the prescribed authority regarding such action.
Here in this case, it is an admitted fact that the respondent No.2 before filing the complaint referring to the police for registering FIR, he has not obtained any sanction from the Central Government for initiating any criminal prosecution against the petitioner. Therefore, the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 against petitioner, is not sustainable without obtaining sanction. That apart, on perusal of the allegations made by the respondent No.2 in the complaint, it is not attracting any of the provisions of sections 3 (1)(q), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(u) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 25 (Amendment Act, 2015) and there is no manipulation of document by the petitioner and produced the same as genuine in order to believe as genuine to attract any of the provisions of IPC Sections by him. Therefore, the complaint filed by responding No.2 is not sustainable under law and liable to be quashed.
14. As regards to the complaint made by him, in Crl.P.No.8337/2022 in Crime No.112/2022 that during the dispute between accused and responded No.2 in respect of APAR issue, the petitioner issued an anonymous letter from some S.Gowda and without verifying the same he has referred to the Caste Verification Authority and he should not have taken any action against respondent No.2 as per Rule 3 of Official Memorandum of guidelines issued by the Central Government vide order dated 18.10.2013 and 18.6.2014 but the accused without verifying the veracity of the complaint has referred the same certificate to the District Verification Committee, in order to harass the respondent No.2. In this regard, respondent relied upon 26 the guidelines issued by the Central Government which was produced by him in the official Memorandum dated 18.10.2013 and 18.6.2014 wherein it was stated, "the anonymous complaint or such complaint which do not carry both name and address of the complainant needs to be dealt with in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 18.10.2013 in paragraphs 3 (i) of the DOP&T's OM No.371/38/97-AVD.III referred to in Paragraph 1 in the aforementioned letter irrespective of the nature of allegations, which is as follows:-
"(i) No action is required to be takne on anonymous complaints, irrespective of the nature of allegations and such complaints need to be simply filed."
It is further referred that complaints other than anonymous complaint which contains vague allegations needs to be dealt with in terms of paragraph 3 (ii) of the Office Memorandum dated 18.10.2013 as follows:-
"(ii) Complaints containing vague allegations could also be filed without verification of identity of the complainant."27
and also refers that the complaint which contains verifiable allegations and are not anonymous need to be dealt with in terms of paragraph 3 (iii) of the Official Memorandum:-
"(ii) If a complaint contains verifiable allegations, the administrative Ministry/Department may take cognizance of such complaint with the approval of the competent authority to be designated by the Ministry/Department as per their distribution of work. In such cases, the complaint will be first sent to the complainant for owning/disowning, as the case may be If no response is received from the complainant within 15 days of sending the complaint, a reminder will be sent. After waiting for 15 days after sending the reminder, if still nothing is heard, the said complaint may be filed as pseudonymous by the Ministry/Department.."
From the above said official memorandum, it is clear, no action shall be taken against any official on the anonymous letters. Here in this case, the accused said to have received, a complaint against respondent No.2 alleging that he has produced the fake Caste Certificate while 28 seeking job and on the basis of the said letter, the petitioner said to have referred the Caste Certificate to the District Caste Verification Committee. The said certificate was verified by department and was found it was a true Certificate. Of course the allegations made by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner appears to be true as the petitioner ought not to have referred the said complaint and could have not taken any action immediately for verifying the caste, however he has received the complaint and he has only referred this certificate for verification of the certificate and he has not taken any action against respondent No.2 by issuing notice to him or calling any remarks from him. The petitioner has just sent Caste Certificate for verification, such being the case, that itself will not constitute any offence against the petitioner for any of the offences referred by him in his complaint in the 2nd private complaint. That apart, for filing the complaint against the petitioner, to his higher official he has committed any offence during the course of 29 discharging official duty as sanction is required from the Central Government for filing any complaint or criminal proceedings before court. But respondent No.2 has not obtained any sanction against the petitioner for prosecuting him. Such being the case, the complaint filed by him under 200 Cr.P.C and referring to the police and registering FIR against the petitioner is not sustainable under the law. Therefore, both FIR registered based upon private complaint shall have to be quashed for non obtaining sanction.
15. That apart, the contention of respondent No.2, cannot be acceptable that the petitions are not maintainable for filing petition before High Court for quashing FIR is not correct, as respondent No.2 required to obtain sanction for filing the complaint against higher officials for having committed any offence during the discharge of official duty, but once complaint has been filed against the petitioner, then petitioner can file petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing FIR and he is not 30 required to obtain any sanction Rule 19 of CCS (conduct) rules 1965 for filing petition before this court. Therefore, the contention of respondent No.2 not acceptable for the aforesaid reasons. Therefore, I am of the view, both the FIR registered on the complaint filed by respondent No.2 is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, both petitions are allowed. Consequently, FIR registered against the petitioner by Mandya West Police Station in Crime No.27/2022 pending on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Court, Mandya based on PCR No.2/2022 and also the FIR registered by Mandya West Police Station in Crime No.112/2022 pending on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Court, Mandya based on PCR No.3/2022, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE AKV