Allowed

P. Hulugeppa @ Hulugesh @ Nagesh v. the State

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2024CRL.P/101462/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition was filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the FIR as it pertained to the specific petitioners, relying on the grounds and observations made by a Coordinate Bench in a related writ petition filed by an accused in the same crime number.

What did the court decide?

The FIR in Crime No. 3/2016 of Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Bengaluru is quashed so far as it concerns accused Nos. 3 to 7.

P. Hulugeppa @ Hulugesh @ Nagesh Vs the State — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12579 CRL.P No. 101462 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101462 OF 2016

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

P. HULUGEPPA @ HULUGESH @ NAGESH S/O. B. NAGESH, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: 15^TH WARD, AMARAVATHI, NEAR CHANDRAMOUESWARA TEMPLE, HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI.

¶7

C.N. MALLESHPPA @ CHANNA VEERAPPA, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER/TIPPER CLEANER, R/O: ANAND NILAYA, OPPOSITE KEB OFFICE, N.C. COLONY, HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST BALLARI.

¶8

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶9

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

P.RAMESH S/O. PATRAPPA, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF INDICA CAR BEARING NO.KA-16/M-3016, R/O: GYAREHATTI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: CHITRADURGA.

¶11

KRISHNA MURTHY S/O. GOPAL, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: 15^TH WARD, NEW AMARAVATH, HARIJANAKERI, HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI.

¶12

SHIVAPPA S/O. POMPANNA, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: 15^TH WARD, MADDERA ONI, UKKADAKERE, HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12579 CRL.P No. 101462 of 2016

¶16

(BY SRI. S. S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE REPRESENTED BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI, STATE: KARNATAKA.

¶19

THE STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, REP BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-01.

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY POLICE INSPECTOR, ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, BALLARI-01.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR IN LOKAYUKTA POLICE HOSPETE CRIME NO.3 OF 2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELLARY SITTING AT HOSPET REGISTERED THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 13(1)(d),(I)(II)(III), 13(1)(e), 9 READ WITH SECTION 13(2) PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND B RESPECTIVELY.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

This petition is filed by petitioners –accused Nos.3 to

¶28

7 praying to quash the complaint and FIR in Crime No.03/2016 of Lokayukta Police Hosapete registered for offences punishable under Sections 13 (1) (d), (I) (II)(III),

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12579 CRL.P No. 101462 of 2016

¶30

13 (1)(e), 9 read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Herein after referred as to “P.C. Act” for brevity)

¶31

The facts of the case in brief are that

¶32

The Police Inspector Lokayukta has filed a complaint alleging that on 23.08.2016 at about 5.30 a.m while he came with a search warrant along with panchas and staff to Bengaluru Vijayapur National Highway RTO Office, Hosapete as per direction of Bengaluru Lokayukta Police. He found accused Nos.1 and 2 with cash of R.22,790/-, on enquiry they did not submit any explanation. The allegation against petitioners –accused Nos.3 to 7, they were assisting accused Nos.1 and 2 in receiving the bribe amount. The crime came to be registered in Lokayukta Police Station, Hosapete in Crime No.03/2016.

¶33

Accused No.1 had filed W.P.No.52704/2016

¶34

seeking quashing of said crime No.3/2016. The CoOrdinate Bench of this Court while considering the said writ petition along with other petitions by order dated

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12579 CRL.P No. 101462 of 2016

¶37

16.03.2023 passed in Crl.P.No.391/2017 clubbed with other petitions has observed thus:

¶38

“13. The respondent - Lokayuktha has filed statement of objections in all these matters and has produced the photo copies of diaries of the police station concerned. Perusal of the case diaries indicates that either the complaints were received by the Dy.SP and forwarded to the Police Inspector, and thereafter the Police Inspector registered the FIR. The Dy.SP, who is the officer in charge of the police station, having received the complaint was required to register the FIRS, however, the Dy.SP has forwarded the complaints to the Police Inspector, who in turn, has registered the FIRs, which is impermissible.

¶39

The respondent Lokayuktha has also placed on record the authorization given by the Dy.SP under proviso to Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to register and investigate the offence under the provision of the said Act. Proviso to Section 17 of the Act specifies that the police officer not below the rank of Inspector of Police may investigate such offences if authorized by the State Government. The unamended proviso to Section 17 of the Act indicates that an offence referred to in Clause (e) of sub-Section (1) of Section 13 shall not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police. To put it simply, the offence under Clause (e) of sub-Section (1) of Section 13 shall be investigated only on an order passed by the Superintendent of Police. In the absence of any

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12579 CRL.P No. 101462 of 2016

¶41

power to authorize the registration of the FIR, the order passed by the Superintendent of Police concerned authorizing the Police Inspector to register the FIR is one without authority of law.

¶42

The respondent Lokayuktha has not placed any material before this Court to substantiate that the FIRS were registered by the Police Inspector/s at the time when the officer in charge of the police station i.e. Dy.SP/s were not available in the police station.

¶43

In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the view that the respondent - Lokayuktha having not placed any material to establish that the FIRs were registered by the Police Inspector, in the absence of the Dy.SP at the relevant point of time, the registration of the FIRS is one without authority of law.

¶44

By making said observation the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the W.P.No.52704/2016 filed by accused No.1 and quashed the FIR in Crime No.3/2016 of Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Bengaluru.

¶45

Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the said order passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 16.03.2023 is in the process of challenging before the Hon’ble Apex Court.

¶46

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12579 CRL.P No. 101462 of 2016

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated

¶48

grounds which have been considered by the Co-Ordinate Bench. Since, the present petition is arises out of same crime number and considering observations made by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in para Nos.13 to 16, the present petition also requires to be allowed and crime No.03/216 of Karnataka Lokayukta Police requires to be quashed.

¶49

In the result, the following

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i) The petition is allowed.

¶52

ii) The FIR in crime No.3/2016 of Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Bengaluru is quashed so far as these petitioners -accused Nos.3 to 7 are concerned.

¶53

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶54

DSP CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

P. Hulugeppa @ Hulugesh @ Nagesh v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Hulugeppa @ Hulugesh @ Nagesh v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santhosh S/O. Jayappa Vs Manjunath B S/O. Lingaraju

The Executive Engineer Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer MP-3

Sri.Ramalingappa S/O Vs Sri.Arjunappa S/O

Smt. Hajira Begum W/O Late M D Mohammed Ali Vs Smt. Afshana Zeba W/O Mohammed Ghouse

Sachin S/O. Siddappa Gadikar Vs Smt. Sandya W/O. Tanaji Sane

Sri Deepak S/O Late Veerabhadrappa Jambotkar Vs the State of Karnataka