Sri.Ramamurthy B vs Anti Corruption Bureau
2022 Latest Caselaw 1832 Kant

                         1


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

         CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9245 OF 2021

BETWEEN

SRI.RAMAMURTHY B
S/O LATE BHIMANNA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
POLICE INSPECTOR
INDIRANAGAR
R/O 309, 5TH B CROSS
OMBR LAYOUT
ELEGANT PETALS 3RD FLOOR
NO.301, BANASWADI
BENGALURU - 560 043.                 ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI PARAMESHWAR N HEGDE, ADVOCATE (VIDEO
CONFERENCE))

AND

1 . ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU
    BENGALURU CITY DIVISION
    STATE OF KARNATAKA
    REP BY ITS SPP
    HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
    BENGALURU - 560 001.

2 . M NAGENDRA
    S/O MUNIHANUMAPPA
    AGE 58 YEARS,
                                   2



      SECRETARY
      INDIRANAGAR CLUB
      9TH MAIN ROAD
      HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR
      BENGALURU - 08
                                  ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.N. MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1
 DR. G. SUKUMARAN AND
 SRI. GOPALA GOWDA B.H., ADVOCATES FOR R2)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.11.2021 IN CR.NO.09/2021
PASSED BY THE XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE (P.C. ACT)
BENGALURU (CCH-24) AND CONSEQUENTLY ACCEPT THE
B FINAL REPORT.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 01.02.2021 THIS DAY
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

The petitioner herein filed this petitioner under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the order passed by the

23rd Additional City Civil Sessions Judge and special Judge

(PC Act) Bengaluru in Crime No.9/2021 dated 8.11.2020

for having rejecting the 'B' Final Report of the

Investigating Officer.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1

and 2.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent

No.2 filed a complaint before Additional Director General of

Police, Bengaluru on 19.11.2020 based upon his

information one Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Thammaiah registered a case against the petitioner in

Crime No.9/2021 on 5.2.2021 against accused Nos.1 and 2

for the offence punishable under Section 7(a), 13 (1)(a),

12 read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act

(hereinafter referred as "PC Act" in short) alleging that this

petitioner said to be working as Police Inspector in

Indiranagar Police Station, Bengaluru has demanded Rs.10

lakhs as undue advantage from the accused No.2 for filing

B Final report in Crime No.91/2020 registered against

accused No.2 in the said police station. It is further

alleged that the accused no.2 said to have paid

Rs.2,95,000/-to this petitioner by a cheque which was

used for making payment in favour of East Cultural

Association Club, Indiranagar (in short "ECA") for obtaining

a membership and Rs.7.05 lakhs paid by cash. After

registering the case and investigating the matter the

Investigation Officer has come to the conclusion stating

that no such amount has been received by this petitioner

and there is no material evidence against him, therefore,

he has filed B Final Report before the Special Court.

Subsequently, the Special Court issued notice to the

respondent No.2 the informant/the defacto complainant

and he has appeared through the counsel and filed no

objection to accept the 'B' Final report. Special Court

instead of accepting the B Final report rejected the same

and directed the Investigation Officer for placing the order

before the competant authority for seeking sanction under

Section 19 of PC Act in order to take the cognizance and to

issue process under Section 204 of Cr.P.C which is under

challenge.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has

seriously contended that the Investigation Officer after

thorough investigation has filed B Final report stating that

there is no material evidence against the petitioner to file

the charge sheet and he has collected various documents

but no such document available to file the charge sheet

and he has examined so many witnesses none of them

were given statement against the accused for filing the

charge sheet. Such being the case and when there is no

material to frame the charge and no ground to proceed

against the petitioner the order of the Trial Court is not

sustainable and further contended the complainant also

appeared before the court and stated no objection to

accept the 'B' Final report and he has not filed any protest

petition and led any sworn statement and also not

produced any additional document in order to take the

cognizance by the Special Judge. When such being the

case rejecting the 'B' Final report is not correct. It is

further contended that when the Special Court directed the

Investigation Officer to seek sanction from the competent

authority directing the Investigation Officer to produce the

order of the Special Court which is nothing but issuing

direction by the Trial Court to the competent authority

compelling them to give the sanction which is not correct.

The sanction authority shall independently verify the

documents and accord the sanction only on the materials

collected by the Investigation Officer during the

investigation. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court is not

sustainable under the law. Hence prayed for quashing the

impugned order.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1

appeared through the video conference and submitted

when the Investigation Officer already filed B Final Report

stating that there is no material on record compelling the

Investigation Officer to place the order of the Trial Court

before the competent authority is not correct. In fact, the

competent authority shall analyze the documents which

was collected by the Investigation Officer and to accord the

sanction. Therefore, learned counsel supported the report

of the Investigation Officer.

6. Respondent No.2 also appeared through counsel

through video conference and submitted that the 'B' Final

report may be accepted when the complainant not

interested in prosecuting the matter and without his

statement and evidence the Trial Court cannot proceed

with the trial against the accused and which is nothing but

a futile exercise hence prayed for allowing the petition.

7. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of

records, it is alleged that respondent No.2 herein filed

complaint to the ACB alleging that the accused-petitioner

demanded Rs.10 lakhs for filing 'B' Final report against him

in a case registered against him before the Indiranagar

Police in Crime No.91/2020 on the complaint filed by the

Indiranagar club. It is alleged that he has given cheque

for Rs.2,95,000/- and Rs.7.05 lakhs by cash and during

the investigation he has not supported his complaint and

there is no material available before the Investigation

Officer wherein the petitioner filed charge sheet in crime

No.09/2021 but not the 'B' Final Report and therefore the

contention of the complainant that he has paid money for

filing 'B' Final report is not correct. That apart the accused

said to have paid the cash to the ECA club membership

which is subsequently cancelled as his job was transferable

job and requested for issuing temporary and honorary

membership and the said club also cancelled the

membership. The Investigation Officer collected

membership of the accused No.2 in the said club but not to

this petitioner and the Investigation Officer has collected

document that the amount collected by accused No.2

Rammohan in the name of the petitioner and after

knowing it the petitioner has cancelled his membership

and there is no material to show the said amount was

received by this petitioner from the complainant, therefore

based on all these facts the Investigation Officer came to

the conclusion that there is no material against the

petitioner, hence he filed B Final Report and subsequently

the complainant also stated no objection for accepting the

'B' Final report. Such being the case, based on the same

material the Trial Court passed an order stating that there

is a material for taking cognizance is not correct.

8. That apart once 'B' Final report is filed the Court

is required to hold a minimum enquiry by examining the

witnesses by way of sworn statement, then should take

the cognizance and thereafter proceed to issue process

under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. A guidelines also issued by

the coordinate bench of this court in a reported case ILR

2018 Karnataka 1725 in the case of Dr. Ravikumar

vs Ms. KMC Vasanath and Anr, wherein the co-ordinate

bench of this Court has held taking cognizance without

following procedure under Sections 200 to 204 of Cr.P.C,

the taking cognizance itself is not sustainable. In the said

Ravikumar's case where the protest petition was filed and

the sworn statement also recorded thereafter cognizance

was taken in the said case, the coordinate bench quashed

the taking of the cognizance. But here in this case the

Investigation Officer filed 'B' Final report, the complainant

also submitted no objection such being the case, there is

no other alternative for the Special Court for accepting the

'B' Final report but rejection of the 'B' Final report and

directing the Investigation Officer to place his order before

the competent authority is not correct. The very

observation of the learned Special Court directing the

Investigation Officer to place his order before the

competent authority for obtaining the sanction is nothing

but a issuing a direction to the competent authority and

compelling to accord sanction under Section 19 of PC Act is

not sustainable.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court has

held in catena of decisions that the competent authority

shall independently verify the documents and apply the

mind on the materials filed by the Investigation Officer

then accord the sanction. Such being the case, the order

of the Special Judge is nothing but a direction to issue

sanction is unsustainable under the law.

10. That apart, when complaint is not supporting

the case, Investigation Officer also not supporting the

case, material is also insufficient for framing of the charge,

such being the case, if trial is taken up and if no one

support the case, by giving evidence, the Court not able to

hold a trial against the accused which is nothing but a

futile exercise by the Trial Court as submitted the learned

counsel for the respondent No.2.

In view of the above said observation and judgment

of the coordinate bench in Ravikumar's case and in view of

the above observation, the order of the Special Court

rejecting 'B' Final report and directing Investigation Officer

to place his impugned order before the competent

authority are required to be set aside.

Accordingly the petition is allowed.

The impugned order passed by the XXIII Additional

City and Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge

(P.C.Act) Bengaluru dated 8.11.2021 and consequently

rejecting the 'B' Final Report in Crime No.09/2021 of ACB

Bangalore is hereby quashed.

The no objection of the respondent No.2 is taken on

record and 'B' Final Report of the Investigation Officer is

accepted and consequently the complaint and FIR in

Crime No.09/2021 is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

AKV