HANAMANTHA GURANI Vs. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.6/2008 registered for the offence punishable under Sec. 15 and 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 511 of IPC. The petitioner in this petition has sought the relief of quashing the complaint, FIR bearing Crime No.6/2008 filed by the respondent Lokayukta Police pending on the file of Special Court Dharwad in respect of Annexures-A, B and C and in respect of the petitioner is concerned which is pending before the Sessions Court and pass such other order as this Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the petition is that the information regarding the commission of alleged cognizable offence was received by the respondent police on 20.03.2008 and pursuant to the anonymous complaint a case was registered and documents were seized and evidence was collected before the registration of the case. The investigation was conducted by the Superintendent of Police and thereafter the case was registered. The bare reading of the complaint discloses that the Superintendent of Police has investigated the matter and thereafter directed the Inspector of Police to register the case. Accordingly, the case has been registered for the offence punishable under Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which is bad in law and the same is liable to be quashed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments has contends that the judgment in the case of L.Shankar Murthys, 2012 5 KarLJ 545, wherein it is held that registration of First Information Report is mandatory under Sec. 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. An overall reading of the Code Criminal Procedure makes it clear that the condition which is sine-qua-non for recording First Information Report is that there must be information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence. The said principle squarely applies to the case on hand. The other contentions of the petitioner is that FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence justifying the investigation. Even after the allegations made in the FIR taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute an offence. The FIR report registered in Crime No.20/2012 does not constitute and offence under Sec. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The FIR only mentions Sec. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. There is no allegation which make out a case to attract Sec. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. There is neither any allegation that petitioner has not demanded illegal gratification from any person nor there is any mention that petitioner has received or accepted the illegal gratification which is recovered from his possession. Hence, there cannot be a proceedings against this petitioner 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.