Allowed

Smt Suma K v. the State by Lokayuktha Police

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2023WP/9388/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition to quash an FIR registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, holding that no offence was made out against the petitioner and continuance of investigation was unwarranted.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR in Crime No.7/2020; direction to produce concerned D.S.P.; disposal of pending interlocutory applications.

Smt Suma K Vs the State by Lokayuktha Police — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:40601 WP No. 9388 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.9388 OF 2020 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. SUMA K. W/O. DEVARAJAIAH H. AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS WORKING AS SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR BIDARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 049.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SATISH K., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

(BY SRI PRAKASH R.G., ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED FIRST INFORMATION REPORT REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT-POLICE IN CRIME NO.07/2020 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO, INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:40601 WP No. 9388 of 2020

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner has challenged the registration of first information report in Crime No.7/2020 against him for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a) and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the P.C. Act').

¶22

On a complaint dated 24.07.2020 lodged by the Inspector of Police attached to the Anti Corruption Bureau to the Superintendent of Police, a case in Crime No.7/2020 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a) and 7A of the P.C. Act. The substance of the complaint was that he had received credible information from the public that the officers working at the SubRegistrar, Bidarahalli were collecting money to perform official duties through their agents such as, document writers and stamp vendors etc. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau had

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:40601 WP No. 9388 of 2020

¶24

directed a discreet enquiry to be held and a report to be submitted to him. Accordingly, a discreet enquiry was held and it was found that many officers in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bidarahalli were collecting money through their agents. He also placed on record the agents who were helping in the collection of the illegal gratification. Based on this, the office of the SubRegistrar, Bidarahalli was raided on 29.07.2020 and it was found that the petitioner was in possession of a sum of Rs.100/- which was entered in the personal cash register maintained at the office. It was also found that the other officials were in possession of small amounts of cash while those who possessed sufficient cash were all persons who had come to the office for registration of documents. Therefore, being aggrieved by the registration of Crime No.7/2020 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a) and 7A of the P.C. Act, this petition is filed.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:40601 WP No. 9388 of 2020

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not demand or accept any illegal gratification from any person to perform or forbear from performing any public duty, and therefore, an offence under Sections 7(a) and 7A of the P.C. Act was not committed. Likewise, he contended that the petitioner did not demand any undue advantage from any person, and therefore, an offence under Sections 7(a) and 7A of the P.C. Act was not committed. He has relied upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.200473/2023 c/w 200524/2023 (DD 24.07.2023) and contended that in similar circumstances, this Court has held that an offence under Sections 7(a) and 7A of the P.C. Act is not committed.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the premises was searched based on credible information. He submitted that there was no incriminating material seized from the petitioner on the date of the raid. He did not dispute the fact that there

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:40601 WP No. 9388 of 2020

¶31

was no demand or acceptance by the petitioner of any illegal gratification to perform or forbear from performing any official act.

¶32

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶33

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no allegation against the petitioner of demanding or accepting any illegal gratification from any person to do any official favour or forbear from doing any official act. It is unfortunate that though the complaint was registered by the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau on 24.07.2020, the respondent remained quiet till 29.07.2020 and after giving a long rope, raided the premises of the Sub-Registrar. The raid did not yield any incriminating material to prosecute the petitioner. In that view of the matter, continuation of investigation against the petitioner is unwarranted as no offence under Sections

¶34

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:40601 WP No. 9388 of 2020

¶35

7(a) and 7A of the P.C. Act was made out. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to succeed.

¶36

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The registration of FIR in Crime No.7/2020 against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 7(a) and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is quashed.

¶37

Before parting with the case, it is necessary to mention that the Inspector of Police had lodged a complaint on 24.07.2020 stating therein that a preliminary

¶38

enquiry was conducted by visiting the office of the Sub-Registrar and it was found that the officials there were demanding illegal gratification from the persons visiting the office. He also indicated the names of agents used by the office of the Sub-Registrar for collection of such illegal gratification. Shockingly, no steps were taken on the same day to raid the premises of the Sub-Registrar.

¶39

But, it was done on 29.07.2020. If only the office of the Sub-Registrar was raided on the same day i.e. on

¶40

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:40601 WP No. 9388 of 2020

¶41

24.07.2020, situation would have been otherwise. In that view of the matter, the respondent is directed to keep the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police

¶42

Mr. Gopal D.Jogi present before this Court.

¶43

Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to secure information as to whether the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mr. Gopal D.Jogi is still in service and if yes, the place where he is working. Learned High Court Government Pleader shall also keep him present before the Court on 23.11.2023.

¶44

Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed off.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

hkh.

Smt Suma K v. the State by Lokayuktha Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Suma K v. the State by Lokayuktha Police

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

Mr.Kiran Hebbar Vs the State of Karnataka

S Muralikrishna Vs Smt S Shilpa

S Muralikrishna Vs Smt S Shilpa

Smt Bhagya Bai @ Bhagyamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Naveena D R Vs Smt B H Latha

M/S Chaitanya Credit Vs Sri C.Raja