Smt Rajashree D/O Husanappa Jainapur vs State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 3912 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Smt Rajashree D/O Husanappa Jainapur vs State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2025

Author: Hemant Chandangoudar

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                                                    -1-
                                                               NC: 2025:KHC-D:2969
                                                            WP No. 105404 of 2023




                            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. 105404 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

                        BETWEEN:

                        SMT. RAJASHREE D/O. HUSANAPPA JAINAPUR
                        W/O. SRIDHAR HALLI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
                        RESIDING AT BELAGAVI-591304,
                        SHOWN IN THE FIR AS:
                        SMT. RAJASHREE HUSANAPPA JAINAPUR,
                        SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
                        HIPPARAGI ANEKKATU YOJANE OFFICE,
                        ATHANI-591304.
                                                                      ...PETITIONER
                        (BY SRI. P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
                        SRI. NEELENDRA.D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

                        AND:

                        STATE OF KARNATAKA
                        R/BY LOKAYUKTA P.S. BELAGAVI,
                        R/BY COMPLAINT RESPONDENT-1,
                        SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally signed by B
K                       HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580008.
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: HIGH                                                      ...RESPONDENT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
                        (BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE FOR
Date: 2025.02.19
13:15:57 +0530
                        SRI. SRINIVAS B.NAIK, 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, ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER IN THE
                        NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
                        04/2018 REGISTERED BY THE ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU,
                        BELAGAVI (NOW RESPONDENT/LOKAYUKTA POLICE) AS AGAINST
                        THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED ALLEGING OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
                        UNDER 13(2) R/W 13(1)(E) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION
                        ACT, 1988 PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED 4TH ADDL.
                                  -2-
                                                NC: 2025:KHC-D:2969
                                             WP No. 105404 of 2023




SESSIONS AND DISTRICT COURT AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BELAGAVI
(PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

      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

The statement of objections filed by the respondent - Lokayukta is placed on record.

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

3. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, who is serving as an Assistant Commissioner, is in possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income to the extent of 125.14% for the check period spanning from the date of appointment until the completion of 14 years of service.

4. The petitioner primarily challenges the registration of the FIR on the following grounds:

a) The order under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act passed by the Superintendent of Police is cyclostyled and mechanical in nature, lacking the application of mind. The FIR was registered by the respondent only after the issuance of this order under Section 17 of the Act.

b) No preliminary enquiry was conducted by the respondents before preparing the source report or registering the impugned FIR.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2969

Further, the Superintendent of Police failed to verify the source report submitted by respondent No.2.

c) The Circular dated 11.05.2023, issued by the Director General of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, prohibits a Source Information Generating Officer from acting as the Investigating Officer. However, in the present case, Sri Suresh Reddy, Dy.S.P., who acted as the Source Information Generating Officer and verified the alleged source report, has also been appointed as the Investigating Officer, which is contrary to the said circular.

d) The check period considered by the respondents extends to 14 years, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent/Lokayukta, by filing the statement of objections, has strongly opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner has not raised any specific ground concerning Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Even otherwise, the Superintendent of Police applied his mind and passed an order authorizing the Dy.S.P. to investigate the matter. The said order is administrative in nature and does not require detailed reasoning. The petitioner has no locus standi to challenge an administrative order and no right to choose the Investigating Officer for the case.

6. It is further contended that the order of the Superintendent of Police was not necessary, as the Dy.S.P. was already authorized to investigate the matter. The Superintendent of

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2969

Police, upon receipt of the source report, conducted a preliminary inquiry to verify its genuineness before passing the order under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The check period is not required to be mentioned in the FIR, as an FIR is not an encyclopedia; the details can be furnished at the charge-sheet stage. The check period pertains to the petitioner's service tenure, and the Investigating Officer is expected to gather relevant details during the investigation. The prosecution asserts that the petitioner possesses assets exceeding known sources of income.

7. 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:2969

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.

8. 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.

9. 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:2969

"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."

10. In the instant case, upon receiving the source report, the Superintendent of Police did not 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:2969

Moreover, the investigation is sought to be conducted for the entire service period of 14 years, which is per se bad.

11. In light of the above, the continuation of criminal investigation would not sub-serve the ends of justice and secure the justice rather than securing the ends of justice. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR in Crime No.4/2018 registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Belagavi (now respondent/Lokayukta Police) at Annexure-A pending on the file of the learned IV Addl. Sessions and District Court and Special Judge, Belagavi is hereby quashed. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to initiate appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law.

Sd/-

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

BKM Ct:vh