Writ petition challenging FIR registration in forgery and cheating cases. Court held quashing of prosecution order due to lack of judicial sanction and improper investigation agency.
Impugned prosecution in C.C. No.772/2008 for offences u/s 465, 468, 471, 420, 120B read with Section 34 IPC is quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 14291 OF 2018 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR. C.V. VASANTHA MADAVAN AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O. LATE V.VENKATARAMANA SASTRY, RETIRED EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NO.2, III BLOCK, GRAPE GARDEN, 1ST CROSS, THYAGARAJANAGAR, BANGALORE-560028.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRADEEP H.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET VIDE ANNEXURE-A FILED IN RESPECT OF CRIME NO.116/2005 AND C.C.NO.772/2008 OF RESPONDENT POLICE STATION SO FAR AS CONCERN TO PETITIONER AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the registration of FIR
against him in Crime No.116/2005 by the respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and the consequent charge sheet filed in C.C. No.772/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC, presently pending trial before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura.
accused No.5 was working at Government Higher Primary School, Balambeedu, Hangal Taluk, Haveri District, was transferred to the Government lower Primary School, Shettykere Doddi, Kanakapura Taluk, by virtue of an order of transfer dated 27.06.2003 issued by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Bengaluru Rural District. The respondent No.4 stated that the movement order based on the said order of transfer dated 27.06.2003 was issued and accused No.5 reported to duty on 17.07.2003. However, he was absented from duty from 24.07.2004 in view of a news item that appeared in Kanakapura Taluk that fake teachers were working in the department. Since the respondent No.4 suspected the bona fides of the accused No.5, he prayed that he be investigated.
NC: 2023:KHC:32570 WP No. 14291 of 2018
and registered C.C. No.772/2008 and issued process to
the petitioner, who was arrayed as accused No.4.
prosecution launched against him has filed this petition.
that the petitioner was employed as an in-charge Deputy Director of Public Instructions (DDPI) and that when the accused No.3 put up the note of transfer of accused No.5 , the petitioner had merely affixed his signature to the order of transfer. He submitted that it was accused No.3 who was liable for the offence and not the petitioner / accused No.4. Further, he contended that the State Government had directed an investigation to be done by the Corps of Detectives (COD) and the instant charge sheet is filed by the COD which is not a ‘Police Station' under Section 2(s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C’). He further contended that the petitioner was a public servant and he had signed the order of transfer in the ordinary course of his official duty
and therefore, without taking appropriate sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., cognizance of offence could not have been taken against the petitioner.
in State of Karnataka v. Sri Thammaiah and Others [1998 SCC OnLine Karnataka 460].
learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader.
as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the COD is not a ‘Police Station’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the Cr.P.C. as it was only an Investigating agency which must have placed its report
NC: 2023:KHC:32570 WP No. 14291 of 2018
before the officer in-charge of a Police Station who was entitled to file a charge sheet. On all counts, the petitioner is entitled to succeed.
Therefore, the petition is allowed in part. The impugned prosecution of the petitioner in C.C. No.772/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which is presently pending trial before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura, is quashed.
Sd/JUDGE
SMA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17
2 issues framed by the court
Whether cognizance of offences by a public servant can be taken without sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
Whether the Corps of Detectives is a 'Police Station' under Section 2(s) Cr.P.C. competent to file a charge sheet
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Karnataka v. Sri Thammaiah and OthersReferred¶39
State of Karnataka v. Sri Thammaiah and Others [1998 SCC OnLine Karnataka 460] · Who else cites this
10 provisions across 3 enactments
Mr. C.V. Vasantha Madavan
State of Karnataka
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
