Karnataka High Court
V.B. Raikar vs State Of Karnataka on 3 November, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004CRILJ333, ILR2003KAR4805, 2004(1)KARLJ323
ORDER Rajendra Prasad, J.
1. This petition by the accused - petitioner filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing the proceedings in Special case (Corruption) No. 3/1996 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, wherein the petitioner had been facing prosecution for offences under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The Court has heard the arguments of Sri A.H. Bhagavan, learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Sri C. Ramakrishna, learned HCGP on behalf of the State of Karnataka.
3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for petitioner that there is absolutely no prima facie case made out against the petitioner for the said offences. In the departmental enquiry held, it has been concluded that there is no material placed for proceeding against the petitioner. This conclusion has been arrived at after a thorough enquiry. Under these circumstances, it would be in the ends of justice if the petition is allowed as prayed.
4. The learned Counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following decisions in support of his contentions:
(1) : AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 604 (2) : 1982 INCOME TAX REPORTS (SC) 905 (3) : 1996 SUPREME COURT CASES (Cri) 897, and (4) : Unreported Judgment of this Court rendered in Criminal Petition No. 452/1998 dated 14th December, 2000.
5. On the contrary, Sri C. Ramakrishna, learned H.C.G.P. , has strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that there has been a prima facie case made out against the petitioner in this regard. The Departmental Enquiry Report is of no avail to the petitioner. No grounds have been made out to allow the petition. Hence, the learned HCGP prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. The Court has perused the material on record and has given its anxious thoughts over the rival contentions raised at the Bar.
7. From the material on record, it is seen that one Sri Sudhakar Rai had been facing charges for the offence under Section 376 IPC before the Sessions Court at Madikeri wherein the petitioner had been working as a Public Prosecutor. It is alleged that the petitioner had demanded Rs. 5000/- as bribe for showing official favour in the said rape case to the complainant. It is alleged that on 13.12.1994 the petitioner is said to have demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs. 500/- from the said Sri B.S. Sudhakar Rai. The said Sri B.S. Sudhakar Rai had set the criminal law in motion and a trap had been laid and the said amount had been recovered from the petitioner. A Departmental Enquiry on these lines had been held before the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-3, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore, to frame charge and to conduct enquiry. The said complainant came to the examined as P.W. 4 and the complainant has relied upon the oral evidence of P.W.s 1 to 3 and Exs.P.1 to P.13 are marked. After detailed enquiry, negative findings came to be recorded against the petitioner. Accordingly, the Enquiry Report came to be submitted. Now the petitioner has come up before this Court praying for quashing the proceedings in Special Case No. 3/1996.
8. Now, this Court will have to examine the material on record and see whether the petitioner had made out sufficient grounds for allowing the petition. Initially, it has to be mentioned that the facts mentioned above are totally undisputed. The copy of the Enquiry Report placed before the Court would show the details of the enquiries held and the Enquiry Report in this regard. From the material on record, it is seen that charge-sheet has been laid against the petitioner for offences under the provisions of the prevention of Corruption Act on the similar allegations,
9. In a decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of P.S. RAJYA v. STATE OF BIHAR, 1996 SCC (CRI) 897 the Apex Court has held that if the Enquiry Report did not show any prima facie case and if the enquiry had been concluded, the prosecution of the appellant for offences under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act was liable to be quashed.
10. In another decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, the Apex Court has laid the following guidelines for the Courts to be followed while dealing with a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:
"In following categories of cases, the High Court may in exercise of powers under Article 226 or under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may interfere in proceedings relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police office without an order of a Magistrate, as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6. Where 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 institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
Where allegations in the complaint did constitute a cognizable offence justifying registration of a case and investigation thereon and did not fall in any of the categories of cases enumerated above, calling for exercise of extraordinary powers or inherent powers, quashing of FIR was not justified."
11. This Court, on an earlier occasion while dealing with a similar matter in Crl.P.No. 452/1998, disposed of on 14.12.2000, had given the benefit of the Enquiry Report to the accused - petitioner and consequently, following the rulings of the Apex Court, the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. came to be allowed and the proceedings before the Special Court came to be quashed.
12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the ratio laid down in the said decision, it is crystal clear that there is absolutely no prima facie case made out against the petitioner and even the uncontroverted allegations made in the complaint and the evidence collected in support of the complaint do not disclose commission of any offence against the petitioner. In view of these aspects, the Court is of the opinion that the said decisions are totally applicable to the facts of the case.
13. It is to be borne in mind that this Court will have to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with due care, caution and circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it would be in the ends of justice if the petition is allowed, as prayed.
14. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Petition stands allowed and consequently, the proceedings in Special Case No. 3/1996 on the file of the Special Judge and Principal Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, stands quashed.