- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2973 WP No. 100208 of 2025 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. 100208 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. CHANDRAPPA S/O. CHANNAPPA OLEKAR AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. ASSISTANT ENGINEER IN UPPER TUNGA PROJECT, DVISION-1, RANEBENNUR, NOW ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R/O. SIDDAROODA NAGAR, NEAR SIDDAROOD MATA-581110, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ACB / LOKAYUKTA P.S. HAVERI, R/BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE LOKAYUKTA-EASTERN RANGE (BEFORE ACB), DAVANGERE-577001. 3. BASAVARAJ BUDNI S/O. TIMMANNA AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. POLICE SUPERINTENDENT, R/O. BEFORE ACB (LOKAYUKTA)-581110. …RESPONDENTS (BY 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., ISSUE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASHING THE FIR AT ANNEXURE-A DATED 16/06/2022 IN CRIME NO.9/2022 REGISTERED Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.19 13:15:53 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2973 WP No. 100208 of 2025 BY ACB/LOKAYUKTHA POLICE HAVERI FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 13(1)(b) AND (2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT-1988 PENDING PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (SPL.COURT)-HAVERI 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 offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). 2. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, who is working as an Assistant Engineer, possesses assets disproportionate to his known source of income by 113%. 3. The petitioner primarily challenges the proceedings on the ground that the order passed under the second proviso to Section 17(c) of the PC Act lacks application of mind, as it does not assign any reasons for authorizing the Police Inspector to investigate the offences. Additionally, the petitioner contends that no preliminary inquiry was conducted before the registration of the FIR. 4. A perusal of the order passed under the second proviso to Section 17(c) of the PC Act reveals that, apart from stating that the petitioner possesses disproportionate assets to the extent of 113%, there is no reference to the following: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2973 WP No. 100208 of 2025 • The check period, • The income of the accused during the check period (2009–2022), • The assets possessed by the accused and his family members during the check period, and • The assets declared prior to joining service. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent/Lokayukta, in the statement of objections, has strongly opposed the petition and contended that: • The petitioner has not raised any grounds concerning Section 17 of the PC Act. • The Superintendent of Police (SP) has 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 does not require detailed reasoning. • The petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the administrative order or to choose the Investigating Officer. • The SP’s order is not necessary, as the Dy.S.P. is empowered to investigate the matter. • After receiving the source report, the SP conducted a preliminary inquiry to verify its genuineness and subsequently passed the order under Section 17 of the PC Act. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2973 WP No. 100208 of 2025 • The check period is not required to be mentioned in the FIR, as it is not an encyclopedia and can be included at the charge sheet stage. • The excess assets were acquired during the petitioner’s service, and the Investigating Officer will collect further details during the investigation. 6. The issue involved in this petition was examined by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.1019/2024, disposed of on 25.04.2024, wherein it was ruled as follows: 17. A perusal of the order passed by the Superintendent of Police (SP) on 30.05.2023 reveals that there is no mention of any preliminary inquiry conducted before passing the order. The order merely states that the SP received the source report, applied his mind, and was satisfied that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner, leading to the registration of the FIR. However, there is no reference to: • The income of the petitioner, • The check period, • The assets and liabilities declared prior to joining service, or • The assets acquired during service. Mere mention that the SP applied his mind is insufficient to establish that due diligence was exercised. 18. Furthermore, as per Proviso (ii) to Section 17 of the PC Act, the Superintendent of Police is empowered to authorize an investigation. However, under Sections 154 and 157 of the Cr.P.C., the investigation should commence only after FIR registration, and then the SP may grant authorization. In - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2973 WP No. 100208 of 2025 support of this, the co-ordinate Bench has taken a similar view in the following cases: • Udaya Ravi v. State of Karnataka, S.P. ACB (now S.P. Lokayukta) & Another (W.P. No.104906/2023, decided on 20.12.2023), • Balakrishna H.N. v. State of Karnataka by ACB Mysuru (W.P. No.15886/2022, decided on 03.01.2023), and • T.N. Sudhakar Reddy v. State of Karnataka, Lokayukta (Crl.P. No.13460/2023, decided on 04.03.2024). All these judgments resulted in the quashing of FIRs on similar grounds. 7. The contention raised by the respondent/Lokayukta was already considered and rejected by the co-ordinate Bench in the above decision. Furthermore, the Lokayukta challenged the decision in Crl.P.No.1019/2024 before the Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No.16113/2024. However, by order dated 22.01.2025, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, leaving the question of law open. 8. In the present case, the order passed under the second proviso to Section 17(c) of the PC Act is not a speaking order, as it does not assign reasons for granting authorization to investigate the offence. The FIR was registered without conducting a preliminary inquiry, which was held to be mandatory in the above- cited judgment. 9. In light of the above, the continuation of the investigation against the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and the FIR in Crime - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2973 WP No. 100208 of 2025 No.9/2022, registered by the respondent No.2/Lokayukta (then ACB), Haveri, and pending before the Principal District and Sessions Judge (Special Court), Haveri, is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved for the respondent/Lokayukta to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law. 10. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of as not surviving for consideration. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM Ct:vh List No.: 3 Sl No.: 13