Smt Chetana Patil Vs State of Karnataka

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2990 CRL.P No. 100126 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100126 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN:

¶5

SMT. CHETANA PATIL W/O. YAMANAPPA @ VIJAY SHIRAGAVI, AGE. 53 YEARS, WORKING AS JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE CANE COMMISSIONER AND SUGAR DIRECTOR OFFICE, S.NINJALINGAPPA SUGAR INSTITUTE, LAXMI TEK, GANESHPUR ROAD, BELAGAVI-590009.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE BAGALKOT, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011.

¶10

…RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR ,ADVOCATE)

¶12

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

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO, QUASH THE SOURCE INFORMATION REPORT DATED 31.05.2023 (ANNEXURE-A) ORDER BEARING NO. LOK/BGK/DA-02/2023 DATED 26.06.2023 PASSED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LOKAYUKTA (ANNEXURE-B) AND FIR BEARING CRIME NO.06/2023 (ANNEXURE-C) REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 13(1)(b) R/W 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 DATED 27.06.2023 AGAINST THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BAGALKOT, AND ALL FURTHER INVESTIGATION ARISING THEREFROM AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND ARTICLES SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF INVESTIGATION IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED.

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2990 CRL.P No. 100126 of 2025

¶16

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

¶17

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, who is serving as the Joint Director of the Agriculture Department, is in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of 102.66%.

¶21

The petitioner challenges the proceedings primarily on the following grounds:

¶22

The order passed under the second proviso to Section 17(c) of the PC Act lacks proper reasoning and application of mind, as it does not assign any reasons while authorizing the Police Inspector to investigate the offences.

¶23

No preliminary enquiry was conducted before the registration of the FIR.

¶24

A perusal of the order passed under the second proviso to Section 17(c) of the PC Act reveals that, apart from merely stating that the petitioner possesses assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of 102.66%, the order does not mention:

¶25

The check period,

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2990 CRL.P No. 100126 of 2025

¶27

The income of the accused during the check period,

¶28

The assets possessed by the accused during the check period,

¶29

The assets of the accused and his family prior to his joining service.

¶30

The learned counsel for the respondent/Lokayukta, by

¶31

filing a statement of objections, has strongly opposed the petition, contending that:

¶32

The petitioner has not raised any specific challenge concerning Section 17 of the PC Act.

¶33

Even otherwise, the Superintendent of Police (SP) applied his mind and passed an order authorizing the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.) to investigate the matter.

¶34

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

¶35

The petitioner has no locus standi to challenge an administrative order, nor does he have the right to choose the investigating officer.

¶36

The SP’s authorization is not necessary, as the Dy.S.P. is independently empowered to investigate.

¶37

The SP, after receiving the source report, conducted a preliminary enquiry to verify its genuineness before passing the order under Section 17 of the PC Act.

¶38

The check period need not be mentioned in the FIR, as the FIR is not an encyclopedia; such details can be provided at the charge sheet stage.

¶39

The petitioner possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, justifying the registration of the FIR.

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2990 CRL.P No. 100126 of 2025

¶42

The issue involved in this petition has already 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 held as follows:

¶43

“17. Upon perusal of the Superintendent of Police’s order dated 30.05.2023, there is no mention of any preliminary enquiry conducted before passing the order. The order merely states that the SP received the source report, applied his mind, and was satisfied that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner/accused, thereby directing the registration of the FIR. However, no details regarding the petitioner’s income, check period, assets, and liabilities before and during his service are mentioned. A mere assertion that “mind has been applied” is insufficient to establish proper application of mind.

¶44

18. The police should have first registered the FIR, sent the source report along with it, and only thereafter should the SP have passed the authorization order under Section 17 of the PC Act. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Udaya Ravi v. State of Karnataka (W.P. No.104906/2023, dated 20.12.2023) and Balakrishna H.N. v. State of Karnataka (W.P. No.15886/2022, dated 03.01.2023) has taken a similar view, holding that FIRs registered in such circumstances are liable to be quashed. Further, in T.N. Sudhakar Reddy v. State of Karnataka, Lokayukta (Crl.P. No.13460/2023, dated 04.03.2024), this Court, after considering the precedent, quashed the FIR on identical grounds.”

¶45

The contentions raised by the respondent/Lokayukta were considered and rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforementioned case. The decision in Crl.P.No.1019/2024 was challenged by the respondent/Lokayukta before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.16113/2024, which was dismissed on 22.01.2025, while keeping open the question of law.

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2990 CRL.P No. 100126 of 2025

¶48

In the present 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 enquiry, which has been held to be mandatory by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the above-cited decisions.

¶49

In light of the foregoing discussion, the continuation of the investigation against the petitioner would not serve the interests of justice. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and the impugned FIR in Crime No.06/2023, registered by the respondent/Lokayukta (formerly ACB), Bagalkot, is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent/Lokayukta to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶50

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

¶51

Ordered accordingly.

¶52

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶53

AC Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0

Smt Chetana Patil v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Chetana Patil 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

Pradeep S/O Shivappa Alur Vs State of Karnataka

Gopal S/O Lingappa Malgiti Vs State of Karnataka