J.P. PRAKASH Vs. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed seeking to quash the F.I.R. registered against the petitioner herein by Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bellary police station in Lok. Crime No. 10/2009. As the facts unfurl, the Police Inspector of respondent Lokayuktha on receipt of a credible information on 30.12.2009 during evening hours about the untoward conduct of Motor Vehicle Inspectors at Hagari RT.O. check post in stopping the vehicles passing through the check post and taking illegal gratification from the drivers under demand etc., went to the spot along with the panchas and the staff at 5.00 a.m. They noticed two home guards stopping the lorries passing through the check posts and insisting the inmates of the vehicles to show the documents to the official in the check post. Accordingly, drivers and cleaners of the lorry were alighting from the vehicles and running to the check post with their documents: after talking to the officials inside the check post they were giving money to the officials. The Investigating Officer, on inquiry with the three drivers of the lorries was informed that they had paid bribe of Rs. 400/ -, Rs. 500/ - and Rs. 600/ - respectively to the private persons in the check posts, but no receipt was given to them. Those drivers/cleaners were brought to the check post and they showed the Inspector of Motor Vehicle and three private persons, who had received money from them. The private persons, on inquiry, further revealed that the money is kept on the cot as per the instruction of the Motor Vehicle Inspector at the instruction of the P.I. the Motor Vehicle Inspector produced the currency notes from the cot, documents and cash of Rs. 46,920/ - were seized. The amount of Rs. 46,920/ - is the amount depicted in various receipts. The written explanation of the Motor Vehicle Inspector/petitioner herein and the drivers and cleaners was recorded The P.I. was informed that no register was maintained to declare the personal cash. The penalty amount of Rs. 46,920/ - collected under the receipt was handed over to Assistant Regional Transport Officer and was remitted to the Government. From search of the room in which the petitioner was staying, from underneath the cot additional amount of Rs. 6,987/ - was traced, mahazar was drawn, the P.I. returned to the police station and registered the case. After investigation, he has filed 'C' report.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that after failing to collect any incriminating evidence against the petitioner the respondent - Lokayuktha has filed 'C' report, but that by itself is not sufficient for him to get exonerated from the allegations made against him in the F.I.R He is denied timely promotion under the pretext that he has not been fully exonerated of the allegation, but only 'C' report is filed. There is every possibility that at a future point of time, the F.I.R. may be revoked and he may be prosecuted. Since his juniors have been promoted, that has resulted in mis -carriage of justice. The very act of the P.I. in proceeding to the check post without registering a case to conduct investigation on the basis of the so called credible information received by him in respect of a cognizable offence not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C., has no legal sanctity in view of the various judicial pronouncements of this Court (Crl. P. No. 10616/2013 D.D. 23.08.2013 K. Yerriswamy v. State of Karnataka, Lokayuktha, Bellary; Crl. P. No. 15941/2012 c/w. Crl. P. No. 15852/2012 D.D. 05.02.2013 Sri Ginshchandra and Another v. The State by Lokayuktha Police, Yadgir (D.B.); Crl. P. No. 1001/2013 D.D. 09.04.2013 Sri K. Ashwath Reddy and Another v. Karnataka Lokayuktha Police, Police Wing, City Division, Bangalore; Crl. P. No. 3213/2012 c/w. Crl. P. Nos. 2142, 2877, 2910 and 2942 of 2012 D.D. 03.09.2012 -L. Shankaramurthy, N.A. Ramesh, B.H. Shankare Gowda, S. Dinesh, Smt. H. Jayamma and Another v. The State by Lokayuktha Police, City Division, Bangalore Urban Division, Bangalore; Crl. P. No. 10442/2013 D.D. 18.03.2013 Somashekhrappa v. The Karnataka Lokayukta, Belgaum; Crl. P. No. 11477/2011 D.D. 26.03.2013 Shri C. Hemanth Kumar v. Karnataka Lokayuktha, Hospet, Bellary District). When the Lokayuktha challenged Crl. P. No. 2142/2012 (N.A. Ramesh's case) judgment of this Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3508/2013, it was considered along with bunch of cases and was rejected.

(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel for Lokayuktha in reply submits that since 'C' report is filed, the petitioner cannot have any grievance about the registration of the FIR. It is not the case of Lokayuktha that a case is registered on false information, but for want of evidence the case is closed with 'C' report. That does not mean that the petitioner is given a clean chit. He was found to be in possession of excess money, disproportionate to the cash amount collected under receipts. His explanation, if any, is liable to be examined by his Disciplinary Authority. He wants to wriggle out of the departmental inquiry which is initiated against him, under the guise of seeking quashing of FIR and seizure mahazar.