Quashed

Mr Niranjan Kumar C v. Anti Corruption Bureau

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2021CRL.P/488/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two police officers sought quashing of an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act alleging demand and acceptance of a bribe. The court found the complaint belatedly lodged and registered only after five other FIRs against the same officer had been stayed, held it manifestly mala fide and an abuse of process, and quashed the FIR.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR in Crime No.23/2020 dated 24.06.2020 under Sections 7(a), 13(1)(a) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 quashed.

Mr Niranjan Kumar C Vs Anti Corruption Bureau — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3297/2020 C/W. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.488/2021

¶6

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3297/2020:

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI PRABHU SHANKAR S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE RESIDING AT NO.1160 17^TH MAIN, 20^TH CROSS ‘A’ BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGAR BENGALURU-560 092.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI A.S.PONNANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT.LEELA P.DEVADIGA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶13

REPPRESENTED BY ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560 001.

¶14

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CRIME-I, CITY CRIME BRANCH BENGALURU CITY-560 001.

¶15

3 . SRI ANWAR MOHAMMED FAHEEM S/O ANWAR IBRAHIM

¶16

¶17

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS M.A.ASSOCIATES, FLAT NO.403 4^TH FLOOR, MILICENT APARTMENTS RICHMOND TOWN BENGALURU-560 025. … RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI MANMOHAN P.N., SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1; SRI V.M.SHEELVANT, SPP-I, FOR R2; R3-SERVED)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 24.06.2020 IN CRIME NO.23/2020 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT ACB POLICE AND THE COMPLAINT DATED 01.06.2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES-A AND B RESPECTIVELY AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO.

¶20

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.488/2021:

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

MR. NIRANJAN KUMAR C., S/O CHANDREGOWDA N., AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS POLICE INSPECTOR PRESENTLY AT CITY CONTROL ROOM R/O.212, 1^ST FLOOR, 17^TH ‘D’ CROSS 7^TH ‘C’ MAIN, 3^RD BLOCK, 4^TH STAGE BASAVESHWARA NAGAR BENGALURU-560 079. … PETITIONER

¶23

(BY SRI PARAMESHWAR N.HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

1 . ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU BENGALURU CITY DIVISION, BENGLAURU REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL PBULIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.

¶26

¶27

2 . MR. ANWAR MOHAMMED FAHIM S/O LATE ANWAR IBRAHIM AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS MILLICENT APPARTMENT FLAT NO.403, 4^TH FLOOR RICHMOND TOWN BENGALURU-25. … RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI P.N.MANMOHAN, SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1)

¶29

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE INVESTIGATION IN CRIME NO.23/2020 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 7(a), 13(1)(a) R/W. SECTION 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, PENDING INVESTIGATION ON THE FILE OF THE 1^ST RESPONDENT POLICE.

¶30

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 30.07.2021 THROUGH ‘VIDEO CONFERENCE’ THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

These two petitions are filed by accused Nos.1 and 3 praying this Court to quash the First information report dated 24.06.2020 in Crime No.23/2020 registered by the respondentAnti Corruption Bureau Police and complaint dated 01.6.2020 on the file of the XXIII City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru city.

¶33

The factual matrix of the case is that, the petitioner in Crl.P.No.3297/2020, was working as an Assistant Commissioner of Police in Central Crime Branch (CCB),

¶34

¶35

Bengaluru city, he was a Supervisory office of the Economic Offences Wing in the CCB. The petitioner in Criminal petition No.488/2021, was working as Police inspector in the same wing CCB, Bengaluru.

¶36

It is the case of the respondent that the complainant i.e., 1^st respondent herein one of the distributor of ITC Cigarette and other products and running M.A.Associates, Wilson garden, Bengaluru, and during the lock-down period in order to distribute the cigarettes and other essential products, he had opened M.A.Associates. On 16.04.2020 and at around 3.30 p.m, two persons came to his office and proclaimed that they came from CCB office and they had disconnected the CCTV. He heard the screaming sound in the basement and went to the basement and found 7 to 8 CCB staff. One person among them introduced himself as Inspector Ajay and another one as Niranjan Kumar and they have enquired him about illegal selling of cigarettes. and he showed the board that no cigarettes are available and they are selling only other general items and hence, they have opened the shop. He was made to sit in his office cabin and told that ACP will come and after sometime a person came and

¶37

¶38

introduced himself as the ACP and sent both two inspectors out of his cabin and closed the door of cabin. He threatened that he is going to register false case against them and he was enquired for an hour. He demanded to pay bribe of 15 lakhs, and assured the complainant that he will not put him in any false case and after negotiation agreed for Rs.7 lakhs and he paid an amount of Rs.7 lakhs to the ACP and after receiving money, ACP left the premises asking the complainant not to come out from the cabin for 30-40 minutes and again ACP came back, later along with Inspector Ajay and Niranjan Kumar returned the CCTV along with DVR. The First petitioner again came back and threatened the complainant with the dire consequences of encounter if he revealed anything to anybody and the same is to protect the Inspector Ajay, who came in Creta car and handed over the DVR which had taken and on verification entire date was delayed and they have not registered any case. Hence, complaint is lodged. Based on the said complaint police have registered the case against these two petitioners and also others.

¶39

The main contention of the petitioners before this

¶40

court is that; based on the paper news, an enquiry was ordered

¶41

¶42

by the Joint Commissioner, CCB. The enquiry was carried out by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime-I and Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime–II, Bengaluru, with regard to the allegations. The enquiry was conducted and reported to the superior officers.

¶43

That based on the enquiry report, the enquiry officers addressed letters dated 12.5.2020, to the Cottonpet police station for registration of FIR as against the petitioner. The Cottonpet police registered two FIRs in Crime No.63/2020 and Crime No.64/2020 for the offences punishable under section 384 read with 34 of IPC. The said FIRs and complaint were challenged by the petitioners before this Court and this Court granted interim orders staying the FIR and investigation pursuant to it have been ordered by this Court. The copy of the FIR dated 12.05.2020 and complaint dated 30.03.2020 in Crime No.63/2020 and the copy of the FIR dated 12.05.2020 and complaint dated 30.04.2020 in Crime No.64/2020.

¶44

It is also contended that in respect of the very same incident and also on the basis of the very same enquiry report two more FIRs came to be registered by the respondent ACB

¶45

¶46

police as against the petitioner for the offences punishable under section 7, 13(1) & 13(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act. The said FIRs in Crime No.15/2020 and 17/2020 came to be challenged by the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court in Criminal petition No.2473/2020 and 2470/2020 respectively. This Court vide order dated 23.6.2020 has stayed both the FIRs and investigation and admitted the petitions.

¶47

It is also contended that on the same day another FIR No.16/2020 came to be registered for the same offence against the petitioner based on the statement of one Santhosh, s/o Babu Lal, whose statement was also recorded during the enquiry conducted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, CrimeII and the said FIR was also challenged by the petitioner in Crl.P No.2485/2020 and this Court by an order dated 23.06.2020 has stayed the FIR and investigation and admitted the petition.

¶48

It is contended that during the pendency of the proceedings of this Court and in view of the fact that this Hon'ble court has stayed the FIRs, the respondent police with a malafide intention of in one way or the other fixing the petitioner have obtained the statement of respondent No.3, herein showing as

¶49

¶50

though he has addressed it to the head of the 1^st respondent ACB police by complaint dated 01.06.2020.

¶51

It is contended that during the enquiry conducted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime-II, the company of the 3^rd respondent is mentioned in the statement of one Adil Aziz and it also forms part of the enquiry report. It was on the basis of the statement that two FIRs were registered in the month of May 2020 against the petitioner, both of which have now been stayed by this Court. That further the statement of respondent No.3, was also recorded during the course of enquiry. That being the case respondent police ought to have immediately proceeded to commence criminal proceedings against the petitioner if there was any iota of truth. Instead the respondent who registered three FIRs against the petitioner apart from the two FIRs registered by the Cottonpet police have with malafide intention and with the sole purpose of harassing the petitioner in one way or the other, proceeded to first obtain a complaint from the 3^rd respondent making vague and reckless allegations against the petitioner on 01.06.2020 and then registered FIR on 24.06.2020 in Crime No.23/2020, for the offences punishable

¶52

¶53

under section 7A, 13(1) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶54

It is contended that based on the very statement of the 3^rd respondent in the course of enquiry, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. The charges framed against the petitioner for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings would include allegation made by the 3^rd respondent. The copy of the said charges against the petitioner dated 17.06.2020 is annexed in terms of Annexure-P.

¶55

It is contended that there is no explanation for the delay in registering the FIR as well as to why the statement recorded in the course of enquiry was not acted upon is forthcoming. The entire action is malafide, an act to overcome the interim orders passed by this Court and suffers from arbitrariness.

¶56

It is also contended that the initiation of criminal proceedings or setting the criminal law into motion in terms of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code is contemplated under the provisions of Section 154 requires the officer in charge

¶57

¶58

of a police station to forthwith register the FIR if the information before him discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The present alleged incident ought to have been within the knowledge of the respondent police in May 2020 but they have acted on 24.06.2020. The delay is fatal and the same is malicious in nature.

¶59

The entire reading of the contents of the compliant and registration of the FIR only goes to show that the respondent ACB wants to in one manner or the other, make out a case for the offences punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act as against the petitioner and subject him to investigation. The entire proceedings smacks of malafides and is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The entire initiation of criminal proceedings is based on conjectures and surmises. No substantial material whatsoever has been available with the Respondent ACB for registering the impugned FIR.

¶60

It is also contend that, the necessary ingredients to constitute an offence under section 7(a) which is demand and acceptance and that to constitute an offence under section 13(1)

¶61

¶62

(a) is the dishonest or fraudulent misappropriation or conversion to his own use any property entrusted to him or allowing any other person so to do is wholly absent. Section 13(2) is the punishment in case of a public servant committing offences under the provisions of Section 13(1). The impugned FIR and complaint is a clear abuse of the process of law and Court, calling for interference of this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶63

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contend by relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS VS.BHAJAN LAL AND OTHERS, reported in 1992 SUPP (1) SCC 335, it is held that “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” and hence, it is a case to exercise the power under section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶64

It is also contended that impugned FIRs and complaints being a clear abuse of the process of Court,

¶65

¶66

necessitates the exercise for exercise of the inherent powers vested in the Hon'ble Court to quash the proceedings, in the interest of justice.

¶67

It is also contended that in order to get jurisdiction under section 154 of Cr.P.C, enabling the police to register a FIR, the fundamental and mandatory requirement is that the complaint or information available before the officer-in-charge of the police station, must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In the event, there is no material available, if complaint does not disclose any cognizable offence, then FIR cannot be registered and also the criminal law cannot be set into motion. Hence, it is a clear case of abuse of process.

¶68

The petitioner who is the 3^rd accused in Criminal petition No.488/2021 has contended that a false case has been registered against the petitioner herein arraying him as accused No.3. The allegations made against the 1^st accused that he demanded to pay bribe of Rs.15 lakhs and later after negotiation agreed for Rs.7 lakhs. But only allegation found in the complaint that the said accused No.1, after receiving money, left the premises asking the complainant and other inspector not to

¶69

¶70

come out from the cabin for 30 to 45 minutes. There is no allegations either the petitioner obtained or accepted or made an attempt to obtain any undue advantage and as such allegations made against this petitioner. This petitioner has been falsely implicated in the offence by the vested interests.

¶71

It is contended that in fact this petitioner is the whistle blower of the illegal racket in selling the Cigarettes during the lock down period and he had filed the complaint against one person who was engaged in illegally distributing and selling the Cigarettes during the lock down period on the file of the K.R.Puram Police station in Crime No.167/2020 for the offences punishable under Section 188, 269 & 270 of IPC and Section 15(b) NDM Act. In view of the petitioner bringing out the illegal act of one of the distributor of the Cigarettes, the other distributors have joined the hands and filed a false case against the petitioner.

¶72

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contend that, on account of vengeance that the petitioner has unearthed the illegal act committed by one of the distributor of the ITC Cigarette, a conspiracy has been hatched to fix the

¶73

¶74

petitioner in a false case and consequently, the petitioner has been made as a scape goat. There is absolutely no allegation in the complaint against the petitioner to indicate either the petitioner has made any demand or made an attempt to receive any pecuniary advantage in order to invoke the penal provision under Section 7(a) of the PC Act. In the absence of such materials in the complaint, he has been falsely implicated in the case.

¶75

The learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.3297/2020 in support of his contention he also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of LALITA

¶76

KUMARI VS. GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH AND

¶77

OTHERS, reported in (2014) 2 SCC , brought to the notice of this Court in paragraph No. 97, wherein Apex Court held that in the absence of no material, the said criminal law set in motion is an abuse of process. It mandates only registration of FIR, if complaint discloses cognizable offence or otherwise, there cannot be any criminal prosecution.

¶78

” 97. The Code contemplates two kinds of FIRs : the duly signed FIR under Section 154(1) is by the informant to the officer concerned at the police station. The second kind of FIR

¶79

¶80

could be which is registered by the police itself on any information received or other than by way of an informant [Section 157(1)] and even this information has to be duly recorded and the copy should be sent to the Magistrate forthwith. The registration of FIR either on the basis of the information furnished by the informant under Section 154(1) of the Code or otherwise under Section 157(1) of the Code is obligatory. The obligation to register FIR has inherent advantages:

¶81

97.1. (a) It is the first step to “access to justice” for a victim.

¶82

97.2. (b) It upholds the “rule of law” inasmuch as the ordinary person brings forth the commission of a cognizable crime in the knowledge of the State.

¶83

97.3. (c) It also facilitates swift investigation and sometimes even prevention of the crime. In both cases, it only effectuates the regime of law.

¶84

97.4. (d) It leads to less manipulation in criminal cases and lessens incidents of “antedated” FIR or deliberately delayed FIR”.

¶85

The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of

¶86

the Apex Court in the case of THULIA KALI VS.STATE FO

¶87

TAMIL NADU, reported in (1972) 3 SCC 393, brought to the notice of this Court in paragraph No.12 of the judgment wherein the Apex Court held that,

¶88

12.” First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of

¶89

¶90

evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eyewitnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained”.

¶91

The learned counsel for the petitioner referring these judgments would vehemently contended that even though during the course of internal enquiry statement of the

¶92

¶93

complainant was recorded and after thought by obtaining the fresh complaint by him, one more case has been registered in order to wreck vengeance against the petitioner herein. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of P.SATYNANARAYANA MURTHY VS. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS, reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152, wherein the Apex Court has discussed with regard to “mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, reiterated, would not be sufficient to bring home the charge under Section 7 and 13 of 1988 Act”. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court in paragraph Nos.13 to 27, wherein the detailed discussion was made with regard to proof of demand and acceptance. In paragraph No.19, discussed with regard to Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶94

The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment in the case of DASHRATH SINGH CHAUHAN VS. CBI , reported in (2018) SCC ONLINE SC 1841 wherein the Apex Court in the paragraph No.20, discussed with

¶95

¶96

regard to Section 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and in paragraph No.29 and 32, the Apex Court comes to the conclusion that, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove the twin requirement of the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the police. It was the case of the prosecution in the charge that, the police did not accept the bribe money, but the money was accepted and in possession of Niranjan kumar i.e., coaccused and further held that in order to attract Sections 7 and 13 , twin requirement of demand and acceptance of bribery is essential to bring home the accused for the offence. The counsel referring these judgments vehemently contend that, registration of this case to manifest all mala fides and only to overcome the interim orders granted by this Court, even though the statement of the complainant was recorded during the course of investigation itself in the month of May, alleged complaint dated 01.06.2020 was taken and when this Court has granted stay in all cases registered against the petitioner. The present FIR is registered on 24.06.2020, after the interim orders of this Court and only in order to overcome the interim orders the present case has been registered. The delay has not been explained by the prosecution in registering the case and case has been

¶97

¶98

registered only in order to wreck vengeance against the petitioner herein.

¶99

The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2 would vehemently contend that, in the case on hand, there is a demand and acceptance by the petitioners wherein, statement of witnesses was also recorded and there is a prima facie case to proceed against the petitioners herein since, the complainant has given the complaint in writing on 01.06.2020 and thereafter, procedure has been followed for obtaining prior permission to register a case and thereafter, FIR was registered on 24.06.2020. Apart from the same, Digital Video Recorder was also seized and house search was made in respect of two persons, mahazar was drawn and further statement of complainant was also recorded. Hence, these material establishes the case against the petitioners that they indulged in collecting illegal gratification from the complainant.

¶100

Learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-Anti Corruption Bureau, in support of his argument has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in STATE OF

¶101

¶102

BIHAR AND ANOTHER V. P.P. SHARMA, IAS AND ANOTHER

¶103

reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222. The learned counsel referring this judgment brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.45 to 48, 59 and 68. In paragraph Nos.45 to 48, the Apex Court has discussed regarding the investigation and the Code demarcates the field of investigation exclusively to the executive to be vigilant over law and order. The Police Officer has statutory power and right as a part to investigate the cognizable offence suspected to have been committed by an accused and bring the offender to book. The Investigating Officer is the arm of the law and plays pivotal role in the dispensation of criminal justice and maintenance of law and order. It is by his action that law becomes an actual positive force. It is also observed that the Investigating Officer would conduct in-depth investigation to discover truth while keeping in view the individual liberty with due observance of law. It is also observed that it is never his business to fabricate the evidence to connect the suspect with the commission of the crime. The Apex Court in paragraph No.59 has held that malice in law could be inferred from doing of wrongful act intentionally without any just cause or excuse or without there being reasonable relation to the

¶104

¶105

purpose of the exercise of statutory power. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.68 wherein with regard to exercising of power under Section 226 of Cr.P.C., an observation is made that quashing the charge-sheet even before cognizance is taken by a criminal court amounts to “killing a stillborn child”. Till the criminal Court takes cognizance of the offence there is no criminal proceedings pending.

¶106

He also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P. CHIDAMBARAM v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT reported in (2019) 9 SCC 24 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.64 to 66 wherein the Apex Court relied upon the judgment of State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma in paragraph No.64 and in paragraph No.66 held that it is not the function of the Court to monitor the investigation process so long as the investigation does not violate any provision of law. It must be left to the discretion of the investigating agency to decide the course of investigation. If the Court is to interfere in each and every stage of the investigation and the interrogation of the accused, it would affect the normal course of investigation.

¶107

¶108

He also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court

¶109

in the case of DINESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 3 SCC 104 , wherein the Apex Court held that inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and while exercising the said power, in context of challenge to FIR the principles was summarized and held that question is required to be examined, keeping in view, the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof.

¶110

He also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER v. SAROJ KUMAR SAHOO reported in (2005) 13 SCC 540 and referred paragraph No.11 of the judgment wherein the Apex Court held that while invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been

¶111

¶112

collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage.

¶113

He also relied upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS v. UJJAL KUMAR BURDHAN reported in (2012) 4 SCC 547 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.11 wherein with regard to exercising of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Apex Court held that the preliminary inquiry was yet to commence and an FIR was yet to be lodged. In the first instance, the High Court stayed the preliminary inquiry by an interim order in the writ petition, and then by the impugned judgment quashed the same. It goes without saying that commencement and completion of an investigation is necessary to test the veracity of the alleged commission of an offence. Any kind of hindrance or obstruction of the process of law from taking its normal course, without any supervening circumstances, in a casual manner, merely on the

¶114

¶115

whims and fancy of the court tantamounts to miscarriage of justice.

¶116

He also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of TEEJA DEVI ALIAS TRIZA DEVI v. STATE OF

¶117

RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND

¶118

OTHERS reported in (2014) 15 SCC 221 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.5, wherein the Apex Court has held that ordinarily power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should not be used to quash an FIR because that amounts to interfering with the statutory power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C. As per law settled by a catena of judgments, if the allegations made in the FIR prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, interference with the investigation is not proper.

¶119

The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-Anti Corruption Bureau referring these judgments would vehemently contend that the FIR cannot be quashed at the initial stage and truth has to be unearthed by conducting investigation and there is a prima facie material to proceed against these petitioners and the very registration of the

¶120

¶121

case against the petitioners is not abuse of process as contended by them.

¶122

The learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2 would vehemently contend that there is a prima facie material to proceed against the petitioners. The allegations made in the FIR are serious in nature and detailed investigation from respondent No.1 is required and at this stage, the FIR cannot be quashed. However, he fairly concedes that, all together two FIRs have been registered by respondent No.2 herein i.e., Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime-I and three FIRs have been registered by respondent No.1 herein and the FIR in question in these petitions is no way concerned with the above stated five FIRs. The learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2 has also filed detailed objection statement to the petitions contending that the averment that present incident ought to have been within the knowledge of the respondent-State in May, 2020 but, they have acted as on 24.06.2020 is false and there is no delay in filing the complaint.

¶123

Before considering the material available on record, it is appropriate to consider the penal provisions invoked against

¶124

¶125

the petitioners herein in terms of Annexure-A-FIR. The respondents have invoked Sections 7A, 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in view of the amendment effected to the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. The penal provisions read as follows:

¶126

“7-A. Taking undue advantage to influence public servant by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of personal influence.– Whoever accepts or obtains or attempts to obtain from another person for himself or for any other person any undue advantage as a motive or reward to induce a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of his personal influence to perform or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or to cause to forbear such public duty by such public servant or by another servant, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

¶127

13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.— (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,—

¶128

(a) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own

¶129

¶130

use any property entrusted to him or any property under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do;

¶131

(b) xxxxxxxxxxx

¶132

(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than four years but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

¶133

Having considered the offences invoked against the petitioners in Annexure-A FIR, i.e., Sections 7(A), 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, there must be a demand and acceptance that too, for showing any favour and there must be acceptance of illegal gratification for the favour shown. Having read the above penal provisions and also taking into consideration the contents of the complaint dated 01.06.2020, it is the specific allegation against the petitioner in Crl.P.No.3297/2020 that on 16.04.2020, he visited the business concern of the complainant and demanded and accepted the amount of Rs.7 lakhs and also caused threat to the complainant that, if anything is divulged, it would be serious threat to his life.

¶134

¶135

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.3297/2020 before this Court is that, two cases have been registered against this petitioner in Crime Nos.63/2020 and 64/2020 by Cottonpet Police Station. Apart from that, the respondents herein have also registered three cases for the very same offence. It is not in dispute that, other than this FIR, five other FIRs have been registered. The FIRs in Crime Nos.15/2020, 16/2020, 17/2020 and 23/2020 are registered by the respondent No.2-Police against this petitioner and the same is also challenged before this Court. The other two FIRs in Crime Nos.63/2020 and 64/2020 registered by the Cottonpet Police Station is also challenged before this Court and this Court has stayed the proceedings in all these matters. The interim order granted in respect of Crime Nos.15/2020, 16/2020 and 17/2020 of respondent No.2-Police has also been challenged before the Apex Court. The Apex Court, though granted an order of stay in SLP (Crl.) Nos.387-388/2021, SLP Nos.487488/2021 and 493-494/2021 at the first instance, vide order dated 05.07.2021 those SLPs were dismissed, confirming the order of stay granted by this Court.

¶136

¶137

It is also important to note that, in connection with Crime Nos.63 and 64 of 2020 which has been challenged in other criminal petitions is based on the internal inquiry conducted by the State and the same is for the offence punishable under Section 384 of IPC. The records reveal that, during the internal enquiry, the complainant also made statement before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime-I in connection with the very same allegation in his statement dated 19.05.2020. When the cases have been stayed by this Court, another complaint was taken from the complainant. Apart from the statement which he had made during the internal investigation, present complaint is taken on 01.06.2020.

¶138

It is not in dispute that the said complaint was referred to the concerned Police on 04.06.2020 i.e., subsequent to the granting of order of stay by this Court vide order dated 03.06.2020 and 04.06.2020 and present FIR is registered on 24.06.2020. Prior to the same, all the other 5 FIRs are stayed by this Court. Hence, it is the very contention of the petitioners that the cases are registered with malafide, in order to overcome the stay granted by this Court. It has to be noted that, in the

¶139

¶140

complaint, an allegation is made that, incident has taken place on 16.04.2020, but till 01.06.2020, no such complaint was given and FIR is registered on 24.06.2020 subsequent to the granting of stay in other cases. It has to be noted that, an allegation is made that the petitioner in Crl.P.No.3297/2020 has sent out the accused No.3, who had filed another Crl.P.No.488/2021, in their presence, he demanded Rs.15 lakhs and settled for Rs.7 lakhs. Though an allegation is made that he took an amount of Rs.7 lakhs, but no recovery is made at the instance of this petitioner. The alleged demand and acceptance is also in the month of April.

¶141

It is also important to note that the records which have been filed by the respondents disclose that houses of one Thirthegowda and Muniswamappa was searched and mahazars were drawn on 04.07.2020. The mahazars drawn on 04.07.2020 disclose that nothing was recovered at their instance. But, it is the case of the prosecution that those two persons were aiding this petitioner. Apart from that, statement of some of the witnesses have been recorded and only those persons speak with regard to the visit made by this petitioner to the business concern i.e., M/s. M.A. Associates which belongs to the

¶142

¶143

complainant. First of all, though the alleged incident has taken place according to the complainant on 16.04.2020, no such complaint was filed till 01.06.2020. I have already pointed out that the said complaint is received and acted upon subsequent to granting of interim order by this Court on 03.06.2020. Similar offences are invoked in 3 other cases and this Court has also granted stay in respect of those cases. It is pertinent to note that those stay orders have been challenged before the Apex Court and the Apex Court has also dismissed the petitions filed by the respondents.

¶144

Having perused the material on record, it is clear that, first of all, there is a delay in lodging the complaint by the complainant filed on 01.06.2020, though the alleged incident has taken place on 16.04.2020. Apart from that, no recovery is made at the instance of this petitioner though, it is alleged that, he had collected an amount of Rs.7 lakhs. It is also pertinent to note that the respondents have also conducted raid in the house of other two persons, who were alleged to be aiding this petitioner and nothing is found in their respective houses.

¶145

¶146

It is also important to note that, earlier to this complaint, five other cases were registered against the petitioners herein and those cases have been stayed by this Court and this Court has observed that the same is an abuse of

¶147

process of law by registering one or the other cases in the absence of any material. There is a force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this complaint is registered since the petitioner has succeeded in getting the interim order in all the other five cases. Hence, it is clear that the present complaint is manifest of the malafides. No doubt, both the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon several judgments before the Court, it is settled law that, if prima facie material is found in the complaint, then the Investigating Officer can proceed with the investigation. However, in the case on hand, when the complaint does not disclose any prima facie material, then the Court has to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶148

In the case on hand, I have already pointed out that complaint is filed belatedly on 01.06.2020, though the incident has taken place on 16.04.2010 and FIR is registered subsequent

¶149

¶150

to the stay granted by this Court in all the other matters. Even though it is the case of the respondents that the incident has taken place in the month of April, 2020 itself, the same is brought to the notice of the respondents only in the month of June, 2020 and the present complaint is obtained subsequently and FIR is registered on 24.06.2020. Hence, it is clear that, in order to wreck vengeance, the cases have been registered against the petitioners herein. As already held by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal ’s case (supra), the present case fit into the illustrations at paragraph No.102 of the said judgment wherein, seven illustrations are extracted to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶151

No doubt, in the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the respondents, the Apex Court has held that if prima facie material disclose committing of cognizable offence, then the Court should not exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., I have already pointed out that, in the case on hand, the complaint is registered subsequent to the stay granted by this Court in all the other connected cases. Even though the alleged statement was made on 19.05.2020 itself, a separate complaint was taken on 01.06.2020. Hence, it is clear that, it is

¶152

¶153

infighting between the Department Officers for the reasons best known to them and in order to wreck vengeance against the petitioners, the present cases are registered. Though there is an allegation against this petitioner that he demanded and collected money, no recovery is made at the instance of this petitioner and the statement of witnesses recorded will also not come to the aid of the respondents, in the absence of prima facie material to invoke the offences which have been alleged against the petitioners herein. In order to initiate proceedings under Prevention of Corruption Act, the demand and acceptance are sine-qua-non and also there is no recovery, except the allegation.

¶154

In respect of the accused No.3, who had filed another petition in Crl.P.No.488/2021, an allegation is made that he visited the business concern of the complainant along with other Inspector at the first instance and called the petitioner in Crl.P.No.3297/2020. But, no allegation against him that he demanded and accepted money and only allegation against him is that he visited the business concern and also, it is specific that when the petitioner in Crl.P.No.3297/2020 came to the business

¶155

¶156

concern of the complainant, the petitioner in Crl.P.No.488/2021 was asked to go out. No role is played by this petitioner, except the allegation of visiting the business concern of the complainant however, he has been made as accused No.3. There is no specific allegation against him to invoke the offence under Sections 7(a), 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the said complaint is absurd in respect of this petitioner.

¶157

The Apex Court, in the judgment in the case of State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and others reported in (1977) 2 SCC 699 while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. held that in exercise of wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash the proceedings, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.

¶158

46. The Apex Court also in Dineshbhai Chandubhai’s

¶159

case (supra) has held that the Court can exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. after examining the question involved in the matter and the contents of the complaint/FIR has

¶160

¶161

to be looked into. If the Court finds that FIR does not disclose prima facie commission of any cognizable offence, then the Court can invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings which otherwise amounts to abuse of process and leads to miscarriage of justice.

¶162

Having considered the principles laid down in the judgments referred above, this Court has already given anxious consideration to the principles laid down in the judgments of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1Anti Corruption Bureau and keeping in view the principles laid down in the judgments and having considered the material available on record, including the FIR and other cases which have been registered against the petitioner, it is clear that, in order to wreck vengeance, one or the other case, in all six cases have been registered against the petitioner in Crl.P.No.3297/2020 and the complaint does not disclose the ingredients of the offence under Sections 7(a), 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The said complaint is also obtained on 01.06.2020 and

¶163

¶164

forwarded to concerned Police on 04.06.2020, subsequent to the granting of stay on 03.06.2020. Apart from that, before giving the said complaint, the statement of the complainant was recorded on 19.05.2020 itself in Crime No.64/2020 and no case is registered based on his statement but, separate complaint is taken on 01.06.2020 and the case is registered on 24.06.2020. Therefore, the complaint is nothing but a manifest of malafides attributed by the Police Department with regard to the internal fighting between the officers. Hence, there is a force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in order to overcome the stay granted in 5 other cases, this case has been registered against him. But, the alleged crime in these cases has taken place on 14.06.2020 itself and this FIR is registered after 2 months 10 days. The Apex Court in Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1972) 3 SCC 393 has held that, in case of delay, danger creeps in the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. The delay in registration of case is nothing but after thought creation.

¶165

¶166

I have already pointed out that the complaint is filed belatedly and the FIR is registered subsequent to the granting of stay by this Court in all the cases. The same are questioned before the Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) Nos.387-388/2021, SLP Nos.487-488/2021 and 493-494/2021 and vide order dated 05.07.2021, those SLPs were dismissed, confirming the order of stay granted by this Court. Hence, I am of the opinion that it is a clear case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and if the same is not invoked, it amounts to an abuse of process which leads to miscarriage of justice. In the absence of any material against the petitioners herein, there cannot be any criminal prosecution and registration of criminal case is a serious matter as held by the Apex Court in Muniswamy’s case (supra) and there is no material to proceed against the petitioners herein. Hence, the FIRs registered against the petitioners herein are to be quashed.

¶167

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶168

following:

¶169

ORDER

¶170

(i) The criminal petitioners are allowed.

¶171

¶172

(ii) The impugned FIR registered against the petitioners herein, who are accused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.23/2020 dated 24.06.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a) and 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the file of the XXIII City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru city is hereby quashed.

¶173

Sd/JUDGE

¶174

SKS/ST

Mr Niranjan Kumar C v. Anti Corruption Bureau

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Niranjan Kumar C v. Anti Corruption Bureau

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Shivagangamma Vs Smt Ambikamma

Sri K B Nanjappa Vs Smt. Parvathamma

Sri Madabovi Vs Sri B K Rohith

Sri Prabhu Shankar Vs State of Karnataka

C T Thimmaiah Vs Marulu Siddaiah

Channamma Vs P K Gnyana Prakash