Allowed

Suresh Patil @ Suresh Puttanagouda Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2024CRL.P/5504/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed criminal petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC and Writ Petitions to quash an FIR registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court held that since the allegations did not involve a police trap but a delay in filing the complaint, the mandatory preliminary inquiry procedure under Section 17A was not followed, rendering the registration unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Crime No.17/2023 stands obliterated. Liberty reserved to the Lokayukta to seek approval from competent authority to proceed with enquiry.

Suresh Patil @ Suresh Puttanagouda Patil Vs the State of… — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:37305 CRL.P No. 5504 of 2024 C/W WP No. 26717 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5504 OF 2024

¶5

C/W

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 26717 OF 2023 (GM-RES) IN CRL.P No. 5504/2024 BETWEEN:

¶7

SURESH PATIL @ SURESH PUTTANAGOUDA PATIL, S/O. PUTTANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO. 95, 1ST MAIN, 5TH CROSS, KAMALANAGAR, RANIBENNUR, HAVERI - 581 115.

¶8

B. VINAYAKA,

¶9

S/O. PAVATHI N BEERAPPA, NO. 2153/3, 4TH CROSS ROAD, NEAR SANJEEVINI HOSPITAL,

¶10

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

MCCA BLOCK, DAVANAGERE - 577 001.

¶12

HALESH. U,

¶13

S/O. UCHCHANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1427/A, BUDDA BASAVA NAGARA, 2ND CROSS, BEHIND POLICE STATION, GANDHINAGARA, DAVANAGERE - 577 201.

¶14

ARUN KUMAR D, S/O. DURUGAPPA. M NO. 1332, 2ND CROSS, BEHIND HULIGEMMA TEMPLE,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:37305 CRL.P No. 5504 of 2024 C/W WP No. 26717 of 2023

¶17

GANDHINAGARA, DAVANAGERE - 577 201.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. DALWAI VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, LOKAYUKTHA POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE - 577 201, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶22

SRI. SURESH. R @ SURYA PRAKASH R, S/O. RAMESHA, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: EDITOR, ADDRESS NO. 64/1-2, SRIRAMA NAGAR MAIN ROAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA, DAVANAGERE - 577 201.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA B, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.17/2023 PENDING IN THE FILE OF HONBLE PRL.DISTRICT SESSIONS AND SPL.COURT DAVANAGERE DISTRICT AT DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7(a), 7(b), 7(A) OF P.C. ACT (AMENDED ACT 2018) REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 LOKAYUKTHA P.S. DAVANAGERE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37305 CRL.P No. 5504 of 2024 C/W WP No. 26717 of 2023

¶27

IN WP NO. 26717/2023 BETWEEN:

¶28

SRI. S.M. HEMESHA, S/O LATE S. MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, WORKING AS SUB-REGISTRAR, PRESENTLY UNDER AN ORDER OF POSTING TO THE OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, N.R. PURA, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 134.

¶29

...PETITIONER

¶30

(BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M.K, ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

THE STATE BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DAVANAGERE - 577 002.

¶33

SRI. SURESH R. ALIAS SURYAPRAKASH R, S/O RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 64/1-2, SRIRAMA NAGAR MAIN ROAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA, DAVANAGERE - 577 003.

¶34

...RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI. LETHIF B, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA B, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶36

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE R1 B) QUASH THE IMPUGNED FIRST INFORMATION REPORT REGISTERED BY THE R1 POLICE 18/10/2023 IN CRIME NO.17/2023 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 7(a), 7(b) AND 7(A) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 (AMENDMENT ACT-2018) (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:37305 CRL.P No. 5504 of 2024 C/W WP No. 26717 of 2023

¶39

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶41

ORAL ORDER

¶42

The petitioners in both these cases are said to be the public servants. In Crl.P.5504/2024, the petitioners are accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 and the companion petition concerns accused No.5. Both these petitions call in question registration of crime in Crime No.17/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a), 7(b) and 7(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amended act 2018) (for short PC Act).

¶43

Heard learned counsel Sri. Dalwai Venkatesh appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel Sri. B.B. Patil appearing for respondent No.1 and learned Sri. Hanumanthappa B. appearing for respondent No.2, in Crl.P.No.5504/2024 and learned counsel Sri. Prithveesh M.K. appearing for petitioner, learned counsel Sri. Lathif B. appearing of respondent No.1 and learned Sri. Hanumanthappa B. appearing for respondent No.2, in W.P.No.26717/2023.

¶44

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37305 CRL.P No. 5504 of 2024 C/W WP No. 26717 of 2023

¶45

3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:

¶46

The second respondent is the complainant. The crux of the complaint is that, the complainant purchases a site bearing No.20 from one Basamma, who is said to be the vendor, on registering the sale deed before the jurisdictional SubRegistrar. Long after the sale, a lady claiming that she was Basamma and the one who appeared before the Sub-Registrar was her impersonator, filed her objections before the SubRegistrar. The objections were taken note of and the second respondent – complainant gets the sale deed cancelled. The reason for cancellation was impersonation. The reason projected by the accused for cancellation of the sale deed was that, the complainant had not paid the entire amount pursuant to the sale deed. After the cancellation of the sale deed, a complaint comes to be registered before the Lokayuktha, alleging that the petitioners, a year before the cancellation of the sale deed demanded and accepted money for the purpose of change of khata and for registration of the sale deed.

¶47

On the said complaint, a crime comes to be registered against these petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 on 18.10.2023 for offences as afore-quoted in Crime No.17/2023. Registration of

¶48

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:37305 CRL.P No. 5504 of 2024 C/W WP No. 26717 of 2023

¶49

the crime is what has driven these petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

¶50

Learned counsel Sri. Venkatesh Dalwai and learned counsel Sri. Pruthveesh appearing for the petitioners would in unison contend that the offence alleged against these petitioners are not laying a trap under Section 7(a) of the P.C. Act. It is the complainant's version of the demand of money and acceptance and therefore, the provisions of Section 17A of P.C. Act ought to have been followed by the Lokayukta prior to registration of the complaint. That had not being done, the petitioners would seek quashment of the FIR. Petitioners would also seek to project certain factors on the merits of the matter with regard to the involvement of the complainant.

¶51

Respective learned counsel appearing for Lokayukta again in unison refute the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeking to contend that there is an allegation/a complaint, it is a complaint with regard to demand and acceptance. Though it was not a trap that was laid by the Lokayukta, it is the complainant's version that petitioners had demanded and accepted bribe for the purpose

¶52

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:37305 CRL.P No. 5504 of 2024 C/W WP No. 26717 of 2023

¶53

of performing some duty. The duty was change of khata on the registration of the sale deed. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for respondents that this Court should not interfere at this stage as it is a matter of investigation and the investigation is pending against these petitioners.

¶54

The complainant would also vehemently refute the submission that the FIR be placed in thin air and enquiry be permitted to be continued under Section 17A of P.C. Act, for the reason that he claims that he has lost money out of the transaction of the registration of the sale deed and its cancellation. He would seek dismissal of the petition.

¶55

I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and have perused the material on record.

¶56

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The lis dates back to 30.06.2022. The second respondent-complainant is said to have purchased the site No.20 in S.S.Layout, Davanagere from one Basamma. He takes Basamma to the Sub-Registrar's Office, gets the sale deed registered in his

¶57

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:37305 CRL.P No. 5504 of 2024 C/W WP No. 26717 of 2023

¶58

favour. A person by name Basamma who claims to be the real one, files her objections later. The sale deed gets cancelled by instance of the complainant himself, it could perhaps be realizing that the real Basamma has objected to the registration of the sale deed or any other reason. But the sale deed gets cancelled.

¶59

The involvement of these petitioners would date back to 30.06.2022 at the time when the sale deed came to be registered and a year after, the sale deed comes to be cancelled and the khata was not changed. After getting the sale deed cancelled, the complainant himself appears before the Lokayukta and registers a complaint that, 13 months ago i.e., on 30.06.2022, the petitioners had demanded money from the hands of the complainant and petitioners have accepted money for the purpose of change of khata.

¶60

With the aforesaid allegations, what is discernable is, it was not a case of trap nor the Officers caught red-handed accepting bribe. Therefore, the rigor of Section 17A of the P.C.Act could not be given a go-bye as it was not a case of trap as observed hereinabove. What is alleged is, the decision of

¶61

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:37305 CRL.P No. 5504 of 2024 C/W WP No. 26717 of 2023

¶62

these petitioners to change khata for which they are allegedly demanded bribe. Therefore, it was a decision taken by the petitioners to change the khata or otherwise. Section 17A of the Act would undoubtedly become applicable to the facts of the case and the Lokayuktha could not have registered FIRs on the complaint without complying the mandate of Section 17A of the P.C.Act.

¶63

In the aforesaid circumstance, as it is not a trap that is laid against these petitioners. The complaint cannot be obliterated. What is necessary is, a de novo procedure to be followed from the registration of the complaint, since the crime is registered without complying Section 17A of the P.C.Act, the registration of the crime is rendered unsustainable. It is made clear that it is open to the Lokayuktha to seek approval from the competent authority to conduct an enquiry, inquiry or investigation.

¶64

It becomes germane to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of LALITA KUMARI VS. GOVT. OF U.P. AND ORS. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1. It reads as follows:

¶65

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:37305 CRL.P No. 5504 of 2024 C/W WP No. 26717 of 2023

¶66

“120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:

¶67

120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.

¶68

120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.

¶69

120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.

¶70

120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.

¶71

120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.

¶72

120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The

¶73

11 -

¶74

NC: 2024:KHC:37305 CRL.P No. 5504 of 2024 C/W WP No. 26717 of 2023

¶75

category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:

¶76

( a ) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes

¶77

( b ) Commercial offences

¶78

( c ) Medical negligence cases

¶79

( d ) Corruption cases

¶80

( e ) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months' delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.

¶81

The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.”

¶82

(Emphasis supplied)

¶83

The Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment holds that

¶84

in the cases of corruption, preliminary enquiry is imperative. It

¶85

is more so in the subject case, as the complaint itself is registered 13 months after the incident. Therefore, all these factors should be borne in mind prior to granting approval under Section 17A of the P.C.Act. In the event, approval is granted, the procedure in law shall be followed.

¶86

For the aforesaid reasons the following:

¶87

ORDER

¶88

1. The petitions are allowed.

¶89

NC: 2024:KHC:37305 CRL.P No. 5504 of 2024 C/W WP No. 26717 of 2023

¶90

12 -

¶91

Crime No.17/2023 impugned in both petitions, stands obliterated.

¶92

Liberty is reserved to the Lokayukta to seek approval from the hands of the competent authority and proceed further bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order.

¶93

Ordered accordingly.

¶94

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶95

BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14 CT: BHK

Suresh Patil @ Suresh Puttanagouda Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Patil @ Suresh Puttanagouda Patil v. the State of Karnataka

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 Bharadwaj a S Vs Smt Vidya S

Dadapeer Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Srikanta. B. v. Vs State by Chintamani Town Police

Sri Vijaya Krishna Vs the State of Karnataka by

Bhujangardaya @ Sharath Kumar G C Vs Lathamani

Sri Somanath D Anchan Vs the Authorized Signatory