Allowed¶46

Pradeep S/O Shivappa Alur v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Feb 2025CRL.P/100116/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FIR quashing; disproportionate assets 118.21%; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 S.13(1)(b) r/w S.13(2); second proviso to S.17(c) PC Act authorization not a speaking order; mandatory preliminary inquiry before FIR registration; Lokayukta/ACB Gadag Crime No.06/2022; Grade-II Gram Panchayat Secretary; S.482 Cr.P.C.; S.528 BNSS; Crl.P.No.1019/2024 followed; SLP (Crl.) No.16113/2024 dismissed, question of law open; Udaya Ravi; Balakrishna H.N.; T.N. Sudhakar Reddy; Karnataka High Court Dharwad Bench; Justice Hemant Chandangoudar.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned FIR in Gadag ACB Crime No.06/2022 registered by the respondent/Lokayukta (then ACB), Gadag, with liberty reserved to the respondent/Lokayukta to initiate appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law. ¶46

Pradeep S/O Shivappa Alur Vs State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2953 CRL.P No. 100116 of 2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100116 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

PRADEEP S/O SHIVAPPA ALUR, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: SECRETARY, GRADE-2, GRAM PANCHAYAT ASUNDI, DIST: GADAG. … PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD, THROUGH ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, GADAG.

¶13

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.19 13:15:18 +0530

¶14

RAJESAB FAKRUSAB DESAI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: POLICE INSPECTOR, R/O: ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, GADAG, REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

¶15

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER, IN GADAG ACB CR.NO.06/2022, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 13(1)(b) R/W 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, PENDING ON

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2953 CRL.P No. 100116 of 2025

¶17

THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The petitioner challenges the registration of the First Information Report (FIR) for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

¶22

The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, who is serving as a Grade-II Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Asundi, is in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of 118.21%.

¶23

The petitioner challenges the proceedings primarily on the following grounds:

¶24

• The order passed under the second proviso to Section 17(c) of the PC Act is without application of mind, as no reasons have been assigned for authorizing the Police Inspector to investigate the offences.

¶25

• No preliminary inquiry was conducted before the registration of the FIR.

¶26

A perusal of the order passed under the second proviso to Section 17(c) of the PC Act indicates that, except for the

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2953 CRL.P No. 100116 of 2025

¶28

assertion that the petitioner possesses assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of 118.21%, there is no reference to the check period, the accused’s income during the check period, assets possessed by the accused and his family members during the check period, or his assets prior to joining service.

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondent/Lokayukta, by filing a statement of objections, has strongly opposed the petition, contending that:

¶30

• The petitioner has not raised any ground concerning Section 17 of the PC Act.

¶31

• Even otherwise, the Superintendent of Police applied his mind before passing the order authorizing the Dy.S.P. to investigate the matter.

¶32

• The order is administrative in nature and does not require detailed reasoning.

¶33

• The petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the administrative order or to demand a specific investigating officer of his choice.

¶34

• The Superintendent of Police, upon receiving the source report, conducted a preliminary inquiry into its genuineness and only thereafter passed the order under Section 17 of the PC Act.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2953 CRL.P No. 100116 of 2025

¶37

• The check period is not required to be mentioned in the FIR, as the FIR is not an encyclopedia, and such details can be incorporated in the charge sheet.

¶38

• The check period pertains to the service tenure of the petitioner, and the investigating officer will gather relevant details during the investigation.

¶39

The issue raised in this petition has been examined by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.1019/2024, disposed of on 25.04.2024, wherein it was ruled as follows:

¶40

“17. A perusal of the order of the Superintendent of Police dated 30.05.2023 indicates that there is no mention of any preliminary inquiry conducted before passing the order. The order merely states that the Superintendent of Police received the source report, applied his mind, and was satisfied that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner. However, there is no reference to the petitioner’s income, the check period, or the assets and liabilities declared before joining service. Mere mention of ‘application of mind’ is insufficient to establish that the Superintendent of Police had, in fact, applied his mind.”

¶41

“18. The proper course of action would have been to first register the FIR, forward the source report along with the FIR, and then obtain authorization under Section 17 of the PC Act. The investigation should commence under Section 157 of Cr.P.C. only after registering the FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. The Coordinate Bench, in UDAYA RAVI Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, W.P. No.104906/2023 (GM-RES), dated 20.12.2023, has taken a similar view, relying on BALAKRISHNA

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2953 CRL.P No. 100116 of 2025

¶43

H.N. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, W.P. No.15886/2022, dated 03.01.2023, and quashed the FIR. Likewise, in T.N. SUDHAKAR REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, Criminal Petition No.13460/2023, dated 04.03.2024, this Court has followed the same reasoning and quashed the FIR.”

¶44

The contention raised by the respondent/Lokayukta was considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decisions. The judgment in Crl.P.No.1019/2024 was challenged by the respondent/Lokayukta before the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No.16113/2024, and vide order dated 22.01.2025, the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the SLP, keeping the question of law open.

¶45

In the instant case, the order passed under the second proviso to Section 17(c) of the PC Act is not a speaking order, as no reasons have been assigned for granting authorization to the police to investigate the offence. Furthermore, the FIR was registered without conducting a preliminary inquiry, which has been held to be mandatory by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforementioned decisions.

¶46

In view of the above discussion, continuation of the investigation against the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR in Crime No.6/2022, registered by the respondent/Lokayukta (then ACB), Gadag, is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent/Lokayukta to initiate appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2953 CRL.P No. 100116 of 2025

¶48

¶49

All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of as not surviving for consideration.

¶50

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶51

JTR CT:BCK List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1

Pradeep S/O Shivappa Alur v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep S/O Shivappa Alur v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Balaji Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Sabakka Vs Smt Sumitra W/O Siddaram Karidakannavar

Shri Kumar S/O Yashwant Dhamannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Pavan Kumar M R Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Chetana Patil Vs State of Karnataka

Gopal S/O Lingappa Malgiti Vs State of Karnataka