Karnataka High Court
D R Raviprakash vs State Of Karnataka on 27 August, 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7094 OF 2012
BETWEEN
1. D R RAVIPRAKASH
S/O D.RAGHAVENDRA RAO,
AGED 51 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR,
RESIDENT OF:
NO.1003, 1ST BLOCK,
JANAPRIYA BHARATH ENCLAVE,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,A
SUNKADAKATTE, BANGALORE-560 091
2. P.MUNIYAPPA,
S/O. KENCHAPPA @ PULLAPPA,
AGE 61 YEARS,
OCC: S.D.C., COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE,
NO.21, SRI LAXMIVENKATESH NILAYA,
1ST CROSS, NANJAPPA LAYOUT,
ADUGODI, BANGALORE-13
3. K.RAMAKRISHNA
S/O. CHIKKANNA,
AGE 56 YEARS,
OCC: D GROUP EMPLOYEE,
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE,
R/O NO.2895, 14TH E CROSS,
8TH MAIN, ATTIGUPPE,
VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-40
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI C.H.JADHAV, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI P
PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV.)
2
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE,
CHIKKABALLAPUR,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF
LOKAYUKTA,
M.S.BUILDING,
DR.AMBEDKARVEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001
2. K.L.KRISHNA,
S/O SRI KEMAPPA,
AGED 33 YEARS,
POLICE INSPECTOR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B A BELLIAPPA, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R1
AND R2 )
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF
Cr.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR. NO.6/2011
BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.1 - KARNATAKA
LOKAYUKTA POLICE, CHIKKABALLAPUR AS AGAINST
THE PETRS./ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners arraigned as Accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No.6/2011 of Lokayuktha Police, Chikkaballapur, for the offences punishable under 3 Sections 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, 'P.C. Act'), have sought for quashing the FIR and the proceedings thereon principally on the ground that the procedure adopted by the respondent-police in conducting search and seizure without registering the case as required under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. is bad in law and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, I see considerable force in this contention.
2. According to the case of the prosecution, at about 3:00 pm on 3.6.2011, the Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta, Chikkaballapur received credible information that in the Commercial Tax Department check post situated on the State border near Bagepalli, officials working there are demanding and accepting illegal gratification from the owners and drivers of the goods vehicles transporting the goods and since the shift of the officials get changed at 8:00 4 a.m. everyday, if raid is conducted before 8:00 a.m., huge illegal money could be traced. Immediately, the Police Inspector noted the said information in the station house dairy, secured the presence of two independent panchas, appraised them about the credible information which he had received and thereafter along with the said panchas and staff went near the check post at about 4:30 a.m. on 4.6.2011 and kept watch. While so watching, the raiding party noticed several lorry drivers going inside the check post and coming out. They also noticed a person standing in front of the door wearing jerkin and two persons sitting inside the check post in front of the table and verifying the documents. One of the persons sitting inside was verifying the documents produced by the drivers of the vehicles and was receiving money. After watching these proceedings for about 20 minutes, raiding party went to the office of the check post and disclosed their identity and on enquiry came to know that the first petitioner D.R.Raviprakash, 5 working as Commercial Tax Inspector in the check post was standing in front of the door, second petitioner working as Second Division Clerk and third petitioner Group D employee were found inside the check post. Thereafter, on the personal search of first petitioner, he was found with cash of Rs.340/- and when his almirah was searched, they found cash of Rs.4,500/-. Thereafter, when the personal search of second petitioner was conducted, he was found with cash of Rs.1,500/- and during the personal search of third petitioner, he was found with cash of Rs.3,840/- and sum of Rs.330/- was found in the table draw of third petitioner. On verification of the cash declaration register maintained in the said office, first petitioner had indicated that he has cash of Rs.380/-, while third petitioner had indicated cash in his possession as Rs.700/-, however, second petitioner had not declared any amount in his possession. Therefore, cash found with the persons as well as cash found in the almirah and table draw in all 6 totaling to Rs.9470/- was seized by drawing a detailed mahazar in that regard in the presence of two panchas. These petitioners were arrested and thereafter on return to the police station, on the basis of a suo moto report of the Police Inspector, case in Crime No.6/2011 came to be registered for the aforesaid offence and investigation was taken up.
2. It is now well-settled law by catena of decisions that the police officer can embark upon the investigation of the case only after registering an FIR as required by Section 154 of Cr.P.C.. This Court in the case of L. Shankaramurthy and others Vs. State by Lokayuktha Police, City Division, Bangalore Urban Division, Bangalore [2012 (5) Kar.L.J. 545], after referring to the principles laid- down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bjajan Lal and others [AIR 1992 SC 604], and few other decisions of the Apex Court, as to the requirement of the registration of the case by the Officer incharge of the Station House whenever an 7 information was laid before him and then to proceed for investigation, 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 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.8
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 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.9
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."
3. The principles laid-down in the aforesaid decisions clearly applies to the facts of this case, since the search and seizure were conducted without registering FIR as required under Section 154 of Cr.P.C and based on the alleged search and seizure, subsequently, the FIR has been registered. In this view of the matter, the FIR registered by the Respondent-Police is illegal and contrary to law, as such liable to be quashed.
10
4. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The FIR registered in Crime No.6/2011 of Karnataka Lokayuktha Police, Chikkaballapur against these petitioners and all further actions thereon are hereby quashed.
SD/-
JUDGE DM