Karnataka High Court
Shivananda Aliyas Peerappa Sharanappa ... vs State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2965
WP No. 100290 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 100290 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHIVANANDA @ PEERAPPA
SHARANAPPA KHEDAGI,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
S/O. SHARANAPPA KHEDAGI,
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
BADAMI, TQ. BADAMI, BAGALOTE-587201,
R/AT. 44, BHAGYAVANTHI KRUPA,
HOUSE NO. C-28, GROUND FLOOR,
SECTOR NO. 15, BAGALKOTE,
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOTE-587101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. P. PRITHVI KIRAN SETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY LOKAYUKTA (BEFORE ACB),
Digitally signed by B
K BAGALKOTE, R/BY THE
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: HIGH SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Date: 2025.02.19
13:15:55 +0530
BENGALURU-560001.
2. POLICE INSPECTOR
BY LOKAYUKTA (BEFORE ACB),
BAGALKOTE-587101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND READ WITH SECTION
482 OF Cr.P.C., QUASH THE FIR DATED 15/03/2022 REGISTERED
BY THE ACB POLICE, BAGALKOTE AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN
CR.NO.04/2022 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2965
WP No. 100290 of 2025
SECTIONS 13(1)(b) AND 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE AT
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner challenges the registration of an FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The FIR alleges that the petitioner, a retired Range Forest Officer, possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of 125.52% during the check period from 1992 until the date of his superannuation.
3. The petitioner challenges the registration of the FIR primarily on the following grounds:
a) The order under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, passed by the Superintendent of Police, is cyclostyled and mechanical in nature, lacking any indication of the application of mind. The FIR was registered by the respondent only after the issuance of this order.
b) No preliminary enquiry was conducted by the respondents before drawing up the source report or registering the impugned FIR. Furthermore, no verification of the source report, submitted by respondent No.2, was conducted by the Superintendent of Police.-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2965 WP No. 100290 of 2025
c) The Circular dated 11.05.2023, issued by the Director General of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, explicitly prohibits a Source Information Generating Officer from acting as the Investigating Officer. However, in the present case, one Sri Suresh Reddy, Dy.S.P., who acted as the Source Information Generating Officer and verified the alleged source report, has also been appointed as the Investigating Officer, which is in violation of the said circular.
d) The check period considered by the respondents spans 30 years, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent/Lokayukta, while filing the statement of objections, has vehemently opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner has not raised any ground with respect to Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Even otherwise, the Superintendent of Police has applied his mind and passed an order authorizing the Dy.S.P. to investigate the matter. It is an administrative order that does not require a detailed reasoning.
5. The respondent further contends that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the administrative order or to choose the Investigating Officer for the case. The order of the Superintendent of Police is not necessary, as the Dy.S.P. is already authorized to investigate such matters.
-4-NC: 2025:KHC-D:2965 WP No. 100290 of 2025
6. It is also contended that the Superintendent of Police, upon receiving the source report, conducted a preliminary enquiry into its genuineness before passing the order under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
7. Furthermore, the check period is not required to be mentioned in the FIR, as it is not an encyclopedia; it can be detailed in the charge sheet at a later stage. Since the check period pertains to the petitioner's tenure in service, the Investigating Officer will gather the relevant details during the investigation. The respondent asserts that the petitioner possessed assets exceeding his known sources of income, justifying the registration of the FIR and the ensuing investigation.
8. The issue involved in this petition was examined by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P. No.1019/2024, disposed of on 25.04.2024, wherein it was held as follows:
17. A perusal of the order passed by the Superintendent of Police on 30.05.2023 reveals that there is no mention of any preliminary enquiry being conducted before issuing the order.
There is no reference to such an enquiry in the order. Therefore, the contention of the learned Special Counsel for the respondent that the Superintendent of Police conducted a preliminary enquiry before passing the order under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, cannot be accepted. Even upon examining the order dated 30.05.2023, it is evident that the Superintendent of Police merely stated that he had received the source report, applied his mind, and was satisfied that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner, leading to the registration of the FIR. However, the order itself does not reflect any application of mind.
-5-NC: 2025:KHC-D:2965 WP No. 100290 of 2025 If the Superintendent of Police had indeed verified the source report, he ought to have at least mentioned:
• The petitioner's income,
• The check period,
• The assets and liabilities declared by the petitioner prior to
joining service, and
• The assets acquired during his service.
A mere assertion that he had applied his mind is insufficient to establish that he had indeed done so.
18. Furthermore, the police should have registered the FIR first, sent the source report along with it, and only then obtained authorization under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, from the Superintendent of Police. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed out that proviso (ii) to Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act empowers the Superintendent of Police to authorize an investigation. However, as per law, an investigation begins under Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. only after the registration of an FIR under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is correct in contending that the police are required to first register the FIR, following which the Superintendent of Police may authorize the investigation.
6. In this regard, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Udaya Ravi v. State of Karnataka, S.P. ACB (now S.P. Lokayukta) & Another, W.P. No.104906/2023 (GM-RES), dated 20.12.2023, took a similar view while relying on another judgment of a Coordinate Bench in Balakrishna H.N. v. State of Karnataka by ACB Mysuru, W.P. No.15886/2022, dated 03.01.2023, wherein the FIR was quashed.
Similarly, in T.N. Sudhakar Reddy v. State of Karnataka, Lokayukta, Crl.P. No.13460/2023, dated 04.03.2024, this Court, while relying on the judgments of Coordinate Benches, quashed the FIR.
-6-NC: 2025:KHC-D:2965 WP No. 100290 of 2025
9. The contentions raised by the respondent/Lokayukta were considered and rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforementioned case. The decision in Crl.P.No.1019/2024 was challenged by the respondent/Lokayukta before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.16113/2024, which was dismissed on 22.01.2025, while keeping open the question of law.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Nirankar Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors., Crl.A. No.5009/2024, held in paragraphs 10 and 11 as follows:
"10. Further, we have considered that the check period is from 1996 to 2020, spanning almost twenty-five years. Over such an extended period, inflation and natural economic progression affect the valuation of assets such as property. This can understandably lead to discrepancies in the declared value of assets over time. Therefore, a dynamic approach is necessary when evaluating an individual's income and assets over two decades. The assumption that the declared value of assets such as property or gold remains static is flawed. Such variations must be considered when assessing an individual's assets and income for disproportionate assets. The examination must account for natural economic adjustments and fluctuations over time.
11. It is also pertinent to note that in cases involving allegations of disproportionate assets, the amounts under scrutiny cannot be assessed in the same manner as a bank statement or a daily ledger of income and expenditure. The scrutiny process should not be mechanical, especially when evaluating declared assets and income over a long period. A certain margin of variation must be allowed in such assessments, as economic fluctuations over twenty-five years are inevitable. It is crucial to adopt a nuanced approach to understand how time and economic conditions affect asset valuation in such cases."-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2965 WP No. 100290 of 2025
11. In the present case, upon receiving the source report, the Superintendent of Police did not conduct any preliminary enquiry and, before registering the FIR, granted authorization to the Police Inspector to conduct an investigation. The order passed under the second proviso to Section 17(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not a speaking order, as it fails to assign any reasons for granting authorization to the police to investigate the alleged offence.
12. Moreover, the investigation seeks to examine a check period spanning from 1992 until the date of the petitioner's superannuation, which is per se illegal and contrary to settled law.
13. In light of the above, the continuation of the criminal investigation would not serve the ends of justice; rather, it would defeat the very purpose of ensuring fair and just proceedings.
14. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and the impugned proceedings in FIR dated 15.03.2022, registered by the ACB Police, Bagalkote, against the petitioner in Cr. No. 04/2022, pending before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote, as per Annexure-A, are hereby quashed.
15. However, liberty is reserved for the respondents to initiate appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM/Ct:vh