Karnataka High Court
Raghappa Lalappa Lamani S/O Lalappan ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2972
WP No. 102735 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 102735 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
RAGHAPPA LALAPPA LAMANI
S/O. LALAPPAN LAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SITE NO.16,
RE.NO. 124/2A/1, 8TH CROSS, MURNALA,
VIDYAGIRI, BAGALKOT-587102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ANAND KUMAR ASHTEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU,
(NOW LOKAYUKTA POLICE),
REP BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA-560001.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
Digitally signed by B
K ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: HIGH (NOW LOKAYUKTA POLICE),
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
NORTHERN RANGE, BELAGAVI-590019.
Date: 2025.02.19
13:15:56 +0530
3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,
(NOW LOKAYUKTA POLICE),
BAGALKOT-587101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B.MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND READ WITH SECTION
482 OF Cr.P.C., PRAYING TO, CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN
CR.NO.5/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT; QUASH THE FIR DATED
09.06.2020 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE AGAINST
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2972
WP No. 102735 of 2024
THE PETITIONER IN CR.NO.5/2020 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 13(1)(B) AND 13(2) OF THE
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, AT ANNEXURE-A AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner challenges the registration of an FIR for
the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, who is
currently serving as a Junior Engineer, is in possession of assets
disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of
91.34% for the check period from 2004 to 08.06.2020.
3. The petitioner challenges the registration of the FIR
primarily on the following grounds:
a) The order passed under Section 17 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act by the Superintendent of Police is cyclostyled
and mechanical in nature, lacking any indication of the
application of mind. The FIR was registered by the respondent
only after the issuance of this order.
b) No preliminary enquiry was conducted by the
respondents before preparing the source report or registering
the impugned FIR. Furthermore, the Superintendent of Police
failed to verify the source report submitted by Respondent No.2.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2972
In fact, the source report was prepared on 08.06.2020, and in
undue haste, the Superintendent of Police, on the very next day,
passed a cyclostyled order authorizing the registration of the
impugned FIR.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent/Lokayukta,
while filing the statement of objections, has seriously opposed the
petition and contended as follows:
• The petitioner has not raised any specific challenge
regarding Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
• Even otherwise, the Superintendent of Police had
applied his mind and passed the order authorizing the Deputy
Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.) to investigate the matter.
• The order is administrative in nature, and a detailed
reasoning is not required.
• The petitioner has no locus standi to challenge an
administrative order and no right to choose the Investigating
Officer for the case.
• The Superintendent of Police's order was not
necessary, as the Dy.S.P. was already empowered to conduct
the investigation.
• After receiving the source report, the Superintendent of
Police conducted a preliminary enquiry to verify its genuineness
before issuing the order under Section 17 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2972
• The check period is not required to be mentioned in
the FIR, as an FIR is not an encyclopedia. The check period can
be detailed at the stage of filing the charge sheet.
• Since the check period pertains to the petitioner's
tenure in service, the Investigating Officer would collect relevant
details during the course of the investigation.
• There was excess asset accumulation in the
possession of the petitioner, which exceeded his known sources
of income.
5. The issue involved in this petition was examined by a
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.1019/2024, disposed
off on 25.04.2024, wherein it is ruled as follows:
"17. That apart, on very perusal of the order of the
Superintendent of Police said to be passed on 30.05.2023, the
Superintendent of Police has not mentioned that he has
conducted any preliminary enquiry while passing the order.
There is no reference available in the said order of the
Superintendent of Police. Therefore, the contention of the
learned Special Counsel for the respondent that the
Superintendent of Police has conducted preliminary enquiry
and then passed the order under Section 17 of the P.C. Act,
cannot be acceptable. Even on perusal of the said order dated
30.05.2023, the Superintendent of Police has just mentioned
that he has received the source report and he has applied his
mind and satisfied that prima facie case is made out against
the petitioner accused and hence, he has passed the order for
registering the FIR. Therefore, the said order clearly reveals
that he has not applied his mind while passing the order. If at
all the Superintendent of Police has verified the source report,
he could have at least mentioned as to what was the income of
the petitioner, what was the check period, what was the assets
and liabilities declared by the petitioner prior to joining service
and what was the assets during his service. Merely mentioning
that he has applied his mind is not enough to say that the
Superintendent of Police has applied his mind.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2972
18. That apart, the police could have registered the FIR and
sent the source report along with FIR and then the
authorisation under Section 17 of the P.C. Act should have
been passed by the Superintendent of Police. The learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice that
on plain reading of the proviso (ii) to Section 17 of the P.C. Act,
it empowers the Superintendent of Police to authorise for
investigation. The investigation always starts under Section 157
of Cr.P.C. after registering the FIR under Section 154 of
Cr.P.C. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
has rightly contended that the police is required to register the
FIR, and, then the Superintendent of Police shall authorise for
investigation. In this regard, the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of UDAYA RAVI Vs. THE STATE OF
KARNATAKA, S.PACB/NOW S.P. LOKAYUKTHA AND
ANOTHER, in Writ Petition No.104906/2023 (GM-RES) dated
20.12.2023 has taken the similar view by relying upon the
judgment of another Co-ordinate Bench in the case of
BALAKRISHNA H.N. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ACB
MYSURU, in Writ Petition No.15886/2022 dated 03.01.2023
and quashed the FIR. In another case, in T.N. SUDHAKAR
REDDY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, LOKAYUKTHA,
(Criminal Petition No.13460/2023 dated 04.03.2024), this
Court has considered the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench
and quashed the FIR."
6. 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.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nirankar Nath
Pandey -vs- State of U.P. & Ors. - Crl.A No.5009/2024 has ruled
at paras-10 and 11 as follows:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2972
"10. Further, we have considered that the check
period is from the year 1996 to 2020, which is almost twenty
five years. It must be taken into account that over such a
long period of time, there is inflation and a natural
progression in the changing economy that affects the value
of assets such as property. This can undertstably lead to
discrepancies in declaring the value of assets over the
years. Therefore, there should be a more dynamic approach
while considering an individual's income and assets over the
span of two decades, such as in the present case. The
notion that the declared value of an asset such as property
or gold will remain static is flawed. This has to be
considered while examining an individuals assets and
income while making a determination regarding
disproportionate assets. Such an examination needs to
reflect such adjustments and changes as is natural with the
progression of time.
11. We find it pertinent to note that in cases such
as these where disproportionate assets are being dealt with,
the amounts under scrutiny cannot be looked at in the same
manner as one would do a Bank statement or daily ledger of
income and expenditure. The scrutiny process cannot be as
mechanical as that when you are examining declared assets
and the income of an individual over such a long period of
time. There has to be a certain margin that is given while
making such an assessment as there are invariably
economical fluctuations that would have taken place,
especially over the course of nearly twenty-five years. It is
crucial to have a nuanced appreciation of how time and
economic conditions affect asset value in such cases."
8. In the present case, upon receiving the source report,
the Superintendent of Police failed to conduct a preliminary enquiry
and, before registering the FIR, granted authorization to the Police
Inspector to conduct an investigation. The order passed under the
second proviso to Section 17(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
is not a speaking order, as it does not assign any reasons for
granting authorization to the police to investigate the offence.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2972
Moreover, the investigation pertains to the check period from 2004
to 2020 until the date of superannuation, which is per se illegal.
9. In light of the above, the continuation of the criminal
investigation would not serve the ends of justice; rather, it would
defeat the very purpose of justice. Accordingly, the petition is
allowed. The impugned FIR in Crime No.5/2020, registered by
Respondent No.2 and pending before the learned Principal District
and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, as per Annexure-A, is hereby
quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to initiate
appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)
JUDGE
BKM
ct:vh
