Karnataka High Court
Basavaraj S/O. Sangappa Khodanpur vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 March, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
CRL.P No. 102068 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102068 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. BASAVARAJ S/O. SANGAPPA KHODANPUR,
AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED SHERISTEDAR,
R/O. TAHASILDAR OFFICE, NARAGUND,
DIST. GADAG-582207.
2. SAYYADASAB S/O. ABDULSAB MIRJI,
AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. TYPIST,
R/O. OFFICE OF ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
HUNAGUND, DIST. BAGALKOTE-581203.
3. SHOBHA HULAGEPPA SUDI,
AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. FDA,
R/O. BAGALKOTE TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BAGALKOTE-400706.
4. BASAVARAJ S/O. NAGAPPA NIMBAL,
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. FDA,
WATER MEASUREMENT DIVISION II,
Digitally signed
by
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI
OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
VIJAYALAKSHMI Location: HIGH
M KANKUPPI COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BAGALKOTE-400706.
BENCH
Date: 2024.03.28
11:11:10 +0530
5. REKHA JAGADEESH BHUSAD,
AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. COMPUTER OPERATOR,
R/O. OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER,
BTDA, BAGALKOTE-400706.
6. SUNIL S/O. YAMANAPPA DODAMANI,
AGE. 50 YEARS,
OCC ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF STATISTICS,
R/O. TALUK PANCHAYAT, BILAGI,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587116.
-2-
CRL.P No. 102068 of 2022
7. SIDDU S/O. PARAPPA HULLOLLI,
AGE. 41 YEARS,
OCC. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587301.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
BAGALKOTE-587101,
R/BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD.
2. ANEES AHMAD MUJAVAR
S/O. ABDUL MUJAVAR,
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. POLICE INSPECTOR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
BAGALKOTE-587101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE IN SPL.
CASE NO.28/2017 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 7 AND
13(1)(d) R/W. 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988,
AND WITH REGARD TO THE PETITIONER NO.7/ACCUSED NO.7 IS
CONCERNED ADDITIONAL SECTION 224 OF IPC, IN THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
19.03.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
CRL.P No. 102068 of 2022
ORDER
This petition is filed by petitioners -accused Nos.1 to 7 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the charge sheet submitted in Spl. Case No.28/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'P.C. Act, 1988', for brevity) and with regard to petitioner -accused No.7 is concerned additional Section 224 of Indian Penal Code. (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity)
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Spl. P.P for respondent No.1-State.
3. The Police Inspector, Lokayukta, Bagalkote namely Sri A.A. Mujavar has received a credible information that the officers and staff working in the office of Rehabitation, BTDA, Bagalkote are demanding and accepting bribe amount from the beneficiaries/project displaced persons visiting the office seeking transfer of rights over the sites, for issue of no objection certificate and title deeds etc., and as such the Police Inspector has -4- CRL.P No. 102068 of 2022 lodged the complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station, seeking suitable action under the provisions of P.C. Act, 1988 against the officers and staff working in the office of Rehabitation, Bagalkote Town Development Authority (BTDA), Bagalakote. On the basis of the said complaint the Lokayuka P.S, Bagalokote registered Crime No.5/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988. After completing investigation, the Dy.S.P, Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station submitted charge sheet before the Special Court against petitioners -accused Nos.1 to 7 for offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and with regard to the petitioner -accused No.7 is concerned additional Section 224 of IPC. Petitioners -accused Nos.1 to 7 have sought for quashing of the said charge sheet and proceedings pending in Spl. Case No.28/2017.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners -accused Nos.1 to 7 would contend that on reading of the complaint and -5- CRL.P No. 102068 of 2022 office raid panchanama there are no allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe by petitioners. He contends that demand and acceptance of bribe is necessary to invoke Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988. He submits that there are no pending works on the date of lodging of the complaint and therefore, there is no opportunity to these petitioners to demand or accept bribe from any one of the prosecution witnesses. He placed reliance on the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the of P. Manjunath Vs. State of Karnataka1. He submits that in the said case, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has referred the Hon'ble Apex Court decisions and held that if there is demand and acceptance by the public servant of illegal gratification is sine qua non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988. He placed reliance on another decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shrikant s/o Subray Bhat Vs State of 1 in W.P.No.10027 of 2022 decided on 16.11.2022. -6- CRL.P No. 102068 of 2022 Karnataka2 contending that a case registered on an anonymous complaint and raid, the petitioner being found with cash, as similar to the case on hand, is quashed. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tippeswamy C. & ANR Vs Lokayukta Police3. He contends that circular dated 04.02.2022 has been issued by the Government of Karnataka to maintain cash declaration register, in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in W.P. No.79/2021 dated 10.11.2021. The case on the hand is of the year 2014 and at that time no circular with regard to maintain cash declaration register. On these grounds, he prayed to quash the charge sheet and proceedings pending in Spl. Case No.28/2017.
5. Learned Spl.P.P for respondent No.1-State would contend that there are statement of witnesses who are beneficiaries/project displaced persons who have been stated acts of the accused persons, demand and 2 In Crl.P.No.101560 of 2023 decided on 20.12.2023 3 In Crl.Appeal Nos.391-392 of 2022 -7- CRL.P No. 102068 of 2022 acceptance of bribe and pending of their applications with accused persons. He contends that the said statements of those witnesses establishes demand and acceptance of bribe by petitioners and also pendency of applications with the accused persons. He contends that even though circular has been issued on 04.02.2022 but prior to that there were Government circulars with regard to maintain cash declaration register. He contends that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tippeswamy C. & ANR Vs Lokayukta Police(supra) is not applicable to the case on hand as in that case, appellants had maintained cash declaration register and they are found with less money than the declared in the cash register and on that ground their case has been quashed. He further submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court decisions referred by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of P. Manjunath Vs. State of Karnataka(supra) where decided on evidence regarding demand and acceptance of bribe and not under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. He referring to the Hon'ble Apex Court decision relied upon by the learned -8- CRL.P No. 102068 of 2022 counsel for petitioners in the case of Tippeswamy C. & ANR Vs Lokayukta Police(supra) and has contended that demand or actual acceptance of bribe is not imperative for initiation of proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, if demand and acceptance can reasonably be inferred having regard to the circumstances of the case. He contends that charge sheet materials will prima facie show that pending works of the beneficiaries/project displaced persons with accused persons, they are making demand and acceptance of illegal gratification from the said beneficiaries. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of M/s. Neerarika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd v. State of Maharashtra and other4. There are no grounds to quash charge sheet and proceedings pending in Spl. Case No.28/2017. He contends that in the case of P. Manjunath Vs. State of Karnataka(supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioners, the complaint has been registered after seven days of the completion of work 4 AIR 2021 SC 1918 -9- CRL.P No. 102068 of 2022 of complainant and on that ground the proceedings have been quashed and facts of the present case are different.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Spl.P.P for respondent No.1-State, this Court has perused the records.
7. Petitioners -accused Nos.1 to 7 were found with cash as detailed in the raid mahazar and total amount found with petitioners is Rs.61,120/-. Petitioners having Government Servants are bound to maintain Cash Declaration Register, the circular dated 04.02.2022 is issued with regarding to maintain Cash Declaration Register, in view of directions issued by this Court. Prior to issuance of the said circular there were circulars issued by the Government of Karnataka to maintain cash declaration register. The statements of witnesses who are beneficiaries/project displaced persons indicate demand and acceptance of bribe by the petitioners. Even though statements of witnesses were recorded subsequent to the raid, it cannot be said that there was no demand and
- 10 -
CRL.P No. 102068 of 2022 acceptance of bribe prior to raid by Lokayukta. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tippeswamy C. & ANR Vs Lokayukta Police(supra)has observed as under:
"There may not have been direct evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe amount. In our considered view, direct evidence of making a demand or actual acceptance of bribe is not imperative for initiation of proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, if demand and acceptance can reasonably be inferred, having regard to the circumstances of the case.
8. In the case of Shrikant (supra) even though case is registered on an anonymous complaint and the petitioner being found with cash, there are no statements of witnesses regarding demand and acceptance of bribe, as stated by witnesses C.Ws.27 to 43 in the case on hand. Therefore, the aforesaid decision will not help the petitioners to contend that there was no demand and acceptance of bribe by the petitioners.
9. In the case on hand, considering the charge sheet materials, the demand and acceptance can reasonably be inferred having regard to the circumstances
- 11 -
CRL.P No. 102068 of 2022 of the case. Therefore, when there statements of witnesses regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe, at this stage it cannot be said that there are no materials to indicate demand and acceptance of bribe prior to the registration of the case against petitioners. Considering the charge sheet materials there is a case against petitioners for the offences alleged. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Neerarika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd v. State of Maharashtra and other(supra) has held as under:
"23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or "no coercive steps to be adopted", during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or "no coercive steps to be adopted" during the investigation or till the final report/charge-sheet is filed under Section 173CrPC, while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:
i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal
- 12 -CRL.P No. 102068 of 2022
Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence.
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences.
iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on.
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the "rarest of rare cases" (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage.
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule.
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere.
- 13 -
CRL.P No. 102068 of 2022
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the
police are complementary, not
overlapping.
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-
interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences.
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the
Court do not confer an arbitrary
jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice.
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be
- 14 -
CRL.P No. 102068 of 2022 considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure.
xiii) The power under Section 482CrPC is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court.
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-
restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur [R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866] and Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.
- 15 -
CRL.P No. 102068 of 2022 xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted"
and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438CrPC before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/charge-sheet is filed under Section 173CrPC, while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482CrPC and/or
- 16 -CRL.P No. 102068 of 2022
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order.
xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of "no coercive steps to be adopted" within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by "no coercive steps to be adopted"
as the term "no coercive steps to be adopted" can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied."
10. Taking into consideration of charge sheet materials and guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court,
- 17 -
CRL.P No. 102068 of 2022 at this stage it cannot be said that no offence made out against the petitioners to quash the proceedings against them.
In view of the above, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE DSP CT:BCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26