Karnataka High Court
Sri Nagaraj Shelagi vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7373
WP No. 53893 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 53893 OF 2016 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI NAGARAJ SHELAGI
S/O SRI SABANNA SHELAGI
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR
RTO OFFICE, DAVANAGERE-577 002
2. SRI NAGARAJ
S/O GURUBASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
JEEP DRIVER OF RTO OFFICE
R/A GANDHINAGARA, HULIKATTE POST
DAVANAGERE TALUK-577 512
Digitally 3. SRI JAYARAM
signed by S/O SRI SHIVANNA
ALBHAGYA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
Location:
R/A 1ST MAIN, 11TH CROSS
HIGH
COURT OF JALINAGARA, DAVANAGERE-577 006
KARNATAKA
4. SRI JAYANNA
S/O SRI SHARANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/A DONNEHALLI VILLAGE
JAGALAGURU TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 528
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7373
WP No. 53893 of 2016
5. SRI THIPPESHI
S/O SRI SHEKHARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/A HOSANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 525
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SATISH K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE, DAVANAGERE-577 002
(AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DTD: 11.01.2023)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.3/2016 DATED
29.09.2016 AT ANNEX-A AND SUO-MOTU COMPLAINT DATED
29.09.2016 AT ANNEX-B PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
RESPONDENT AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREOF, IN
SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:7373
WP No. 53893 of 2016
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed seeking quashing of
FIR in Crime No.3/2016 and suo motu complaint dated
29.09.2016.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
The respondent herein has registered a crime in
Crime No.3/2016 against the petitioners and other RTO
officials under Sections 7 and 8 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent sent suo motu
complaint to the jurisdictional District and Sessions Judge
after registering FIR in Crime No.3/2016. The proceedings
pending in Crime No.3/2016 are assailed on the ground
that the respondent who is in the cadre of Police Inspector
has no power to register the FIR. Petitioner placing
reliance on the provisions of Section 17 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act is questioning the authority of
respondent on the ground that he admittedly being a
Police Inspector who was placed in-charge to the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, the then ACB, has no power.
NC: 2024:KHC:7373
The provision of Section 17 contemplates that the police
officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police can
investigate offences covered under the provisions of the
Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the
respondent. I have also given my anxious consideration
to the judgment rendered by this Court in batch of writ
petitions which has decided the issue relating to power of
Police Inspector in registering a crime for the offences
punishable under the provisions of Prevention of
Corruption Act. It would be useful for this Court to refer to
paras 14 to 16 which reads as under:
"14. 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
NC: 2024:KHC:7373
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 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.
15. 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.
16. 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."
NC: 2024:KHC:7373
4. On examining the records, it is clearly evident
that respondent who is in the rank of Police Inspector has
filed a suo motu complaint and has undertaken to
investigate the matter. The entire exercise done by the
respondent while registering the crime clearly lacks
authority and the same is found to be contrary to the
provisions of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act. In the light of the judgment rendered by the
coordinate Bench relating to the same incident, in absence
of any power to authorize the registration of FIR, the
petitioner is entitled to relief and is bound to succeed in
the case.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
has tried to persuade this Court to take cognizance of the
judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench in the case of
Sri T.R.Shivaramu vs. Anti Corruption Bureau, Rep.
by Inspector of Police, Bangalore Urban Police
Station1. This Court is not inclined to accede to the said
ILR 2018 Kar 2318
NC: 2024:KHC:7373
proposition. The contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the Lokayukta that the Government having
declared the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police
as Police Station within the meaning of Section 2(s) of
Cr.P.C., 1973, the Police Inspector attached to the Anti
Corruption Bureau as officer in-charge of the Police Station
cannot be accepted in the light of the judgment rendered
by the coordinate Bench in similar cases.
6. Respecting the orders passed by the Coordinate
Bench of this court, particularly those addressing recurring
legal issues such as the powers of a police inspector in
registering crimes under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
is imperative in upholding judicial propriety and discipline.
The principle of stare decisis, which emphasizes adherence
to precedent, guides this imperative. Firstly, judicial
propriety necessitates honoring the decisions of
Coordinate Benches, to ensure consistency and
predictability in the application of legal principles. The
judiciary's credibility relies on maintaining a coherent and
NC: 2024:KHC:7373
uniform approach to legal interpretation, especially
concerning recurring issues like those involving the powers
of law enforcement officials. Secondly, judicial discipline
mandates adherence to established legal principles and
precedents, as articulated by Coordinate Benches. By
respecting and following the precedents set by previous
judgments, this Court upholds the rule of law and fosters
public confidence in the judiciary's impartiality and
reliability.
7. In the specific context of the powers of a police
inspector in registering crimes under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has
undoubtedly addressed this issue on multiple occasions,
establishing a jurisprudential framework that guides legal
practice and interpretation. These judgments serve as
authoritative interpretations of the law, binding on
subsequent cases and courts, including this one.
NC: 2024:KHC:7373
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UTTAR
PRADESH JAL VIDYUT (S) NIGAM LIMITED V.
BALBIR SINGH 2, has observed as under:
"...learned Single Judge of the High Court
of Uttarakhand is not at all justified in making
comments upon the judicial order passed by the
Coordinate Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
The Single Judge of the High Court of
Uttarakhand was not acting as an appellate court
against the judicial order passed by the High
Court of Allahabad..."
"Judicial discipline/propriety demand to
respect the order passed by the Coordinate
Bench and more particularly the judicial
order passed by the Coordinate Bench of
the High Court, in the present case the
Allahabad High Court which as such was not
under challenge before it."
9. Therefore, in light of the principles of judicial
propriety and discipline, this Court is duty-bound to
(2021) 13 SCC 262
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7373
respect and adhere to the orders and precedents set by its
Coordinate Bench regarding the powers of a police
inspector in registering crimes under the Prevention of
Corruption Act. Any departure from such precedent would
not only undermine the integrity of the judiciary but also
create confusion and uncertainty in the application of the
law. Therefore, the counsel submission that there is
delegation of authority and reliance placed on the police
diary pertaining to this case also cannot be looked into.
10. For the reasons stated supra, this Court is of
the view that respondent had no authority to register the
crime. The same is without authority and contrary to
amended provision to Section 17 of Prevention of
Corruption Act.
11. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed;
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7373
(ii) The FIR registered in Crime No.3/2016
vide Annexure-A and the suo motu complaint
dated 29.09.2016 vide Annexure-B and all
further proceedings thereof are hereby
quashed;
(iii) The pending interlocutory application,
if any, does not survive for consideration and
stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CA
