1 Reserved on : 24.04.2025 Pronounced on : 02.05.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.24171 OF 2024 (GM – RES) c/w WRIT PETITION No.28337 OF 2024 (GM – RES) WRIT PETITION No.24169 OF 2024 (GM - RES) IN WRIT PETITION No.24171 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI MOHAN KUMAR A., S/O LATE ASHWATHAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.265, 2ND BLOCK, 6TH MAIN R T NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 032. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI SUBAIR K.M., ADVOCATE) 2 AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . THE SPECIAL SECRETARY POLICE SERVICES HOME DEPARTMENT, VIHDANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 3 . THE UNDER SECRETARY POLICE SERVICES (A) HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA SRI MANTHAN DAYANANDA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 05.11.2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEARING NO.HD/166/PEG/2024-PS_A A COPY OF WHICH IS HEREIN PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE M AND ETC., IN WRIT PETITION No.28337 OF 2024 BETWEEN: MOHAN KUMAR A., S/O LATE ASHWATHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 3 RESIDING AT NO.265, 2ND BLOCK, 6TH MAIN, RT NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 032. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI SUBAIR K.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. ROOM NO. 320, 3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 3 . DEPUTY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 4 . UNDER SECRETARY (SERVICES-IV) DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA AND SRI MANTHAN DAYANANDA, ADVOCATE) 4 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13.08.2024 PASSED BY THE R-4 BEARING NO.CASUE 337 SPS 2023, A COPY OF WHICH IS HEREIN PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE M, AS ILLEGAL AND VOID AND ETC., IN WRIT PETITION No.24169 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI MOHAN KUMAR A., S/O LATE ASHWATHAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.265, 2ND BLOCK, 6TH MAIN R T NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 032. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI MURTHY D.NAIK, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI SUBAIR K.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . THE SPECIAL SECRETARY POLICE SERVICES HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 5 3 . THE UNDER SECRETARY POLICE SERVICES (A) HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA SRI MANTHAN DAYANANDA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT THE SANCTION TO PROSECUTE THE PROPOSED ACCUSED AS STATED IN THE LETTER / REPRESENTATION DTD. 05.06.2023 PRODUCED AS ANNX-A WITHIN A STIPULATED TIMEFRAME AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.04.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER The petitioner, in all the writ petitions, is common. The prayer that is sought in these cases is seeking sanction to prosecute certain Police Officers of different ranks. Therefore, the prayer that is sought is also common. Facts that lead to filing of these petitions 6 are different in each case. Notwithstanding commonality, I deem it appropriate to deal with the issue petition by petition. WRIT PETITIOIN NO.28337 of 2024 2. This petition calls in question communications dated 13-08-2024 and 07-10-2024 and seeks a consequential mandamus directing reconsideration of the representation of the petitioner dated 06-12-2023. 3. Facts in brief, germane are as follows: A crime comes to be registered in Crime No.55 of 2021 against unknown persons on 19-11-2021. This is based on a complaint with regard to the touts and middlemen belonging to sites and other properties of the Bangalore Development Authority; it was more so with regard to distribution of sites to the general public and fraud taking place therein. Several allegations were made with regard to bogus or forged documents being created for the purpose of defrauding the common man and being completely hand in glove with the officers of the Bangalore Development 7 Authority. The crime comes to be registered for offences punishable under Sections 7(a), 7(A), 8, 12, 13(1)(a) r/w 13(2) of the Act. During the course of investigation, it appears the then officer of the ACB in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police, obtains a search warrant from the hands of the learned Magistrate to conduct search in the premises of the petitioner. It was said to be on a rented premises and nothing was found at the time of search. A second search was conducted in the house and office of the petitioner. Here the search party lay hands upon certain documents, cash, jewellery and several other items and they were all sought to be seized. 4. During the pendency of these proceedings, the petitioner knocks at the doors of this Court in Writ Petition No.7994 of 2022 seeking quashment of FIR in Crime No.55 of 2021 on the ground that house of the petitioner was searched without registering the crime. This Court interdicts further action against the petitioner. Finally a coordinate Bench of this Court allows the writ petition, quashes the FIR qua the petitioner in terms of its order dated 02-02-2023. After quashment of said proceedings, the petitioner 8 knocks at the doors of the learned Special Judge for registering a private complaint against the some of the Police Officers invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge, by a detailed order, after recording the sworn statement of the petitioner takes cognizance of the offences afore-quoted and directs registration of the case and putting it up for furnishing list of witnesses and issuance of process to accused 1 to 7 therein. The matter was directed to be listed on 04-06-2024. Accused Nos.1 to 7 therein have knocked at the doors of this Court calling in question the order of taking cognizance for the aforesaid offences. 5. This Court, in Criminal Petition No.5232 of 2024, in terms of its order dated 05-07-2024, allowed the petition in part, quashed the order of cognizance and directed that if sanction is granted, it would be open to the concerned Court to continue the proceedings and if there is no sanction, no further proceedings can go on. The said judgment has become final. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner had applied to the Competent Authority seeking sanction to prosecute officers named therein. During the pendency of consideration of the application for sanction, the 9 concerned Court takes cognizance of the offence and registers a special case. It is then the accused/Police Officers approaches this Court in Criminal Petition No.5232 of 2024 calling in question the said order of taking of cognizance without sanction being in place. This Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of its order dated 05-07-2024 partly allowing the petition and reserving liberty to exhume the proceedings, once order of sanction comes in place. Pursuant to the said order, it appears that the petitioner again sent a reminder seeking sanction to prosecute the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.5232 of 2024. This comes to be rejected by a communication of the 4th respondent dated 13-08-2024. The petitioner then seeks clarification quoting Transaction of Business Rules. This also comes to be rejected by communication dated 07-10-2024. It is these two communications that form the fulcrum of the subject lis. WRIT PETITION NO.24171 of 2024: 6. The prayer that is sought in the subject petition is quashment of an endorsement dated 05-11-2024 and a 10 consequential direction for reconsideration of the representation of the petitioner dated 06-12-2023. 7. The afore-narrated facts as obtaining in Writ Petition No.28337 of 2024 are the same that are pleaded in the subject petition. The only difference is with regard to an endorsement dated 05-11-2024 which has emerged at a later point in time. The effect is, that the requisition of the petitioner seeking sanction to prosecute the Police Officers, as named in the representation, comes to be rejected. The facts that led to seeking of sanction are identical except the aforesaid difference. The facts, the prayer and the cause of action remain the same. 8. The learned senior counsel Sri Udaya Holla, appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 28337 of 2024 and 24171 of 2024 would vehemently contend that the earlier proceedings comes to be quashed for want of sanction. Now, the petitioner is seeking sanction and the Law Secretary in her opinion opined that Police Officers are to be prosecuted and notwithstanding the same, communication is sent to the petitioner declining to accord sanction, which bears no application of mind. He would submit that the 11 matter be remitted back to the hands of the Competent Authority to apply his/her mind and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. 9. The learned Advocate General representing the State would submit that the representation of the petitioner is seeking sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, while sanction is sought for the offence of defamation and institution of proceedings for malicious prosecution against the police officers. He would submit that the plea for grant of sanction itself suffers from want of bona fides. He would submit that Police Officers have done nothing wrong. They have only acted as per law in searching the premises of the petitioner resulting in certain seizure. Within two days of registration of crime, the petitioner approaches this Court and the coordinate Bench quashes the proceedings. While quashing, the Court did not permit or did not observe even that the action was illegal, which would reserve liberty to the petitioner for institution of proceedings for malicious prosecution. He would submit that for the application so filed, the answer by way of 12 communication is unassailable. He would seek dismissal of these petitions. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 11. The genesis of the problem is registration of a complaint on 19-11-2021 which becomes a crime in Crime No.55 of 2021. Since the entire issue has now triggered from registration of the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. It reads as follows: “¢£ÁAPÀ: 19-11-2021 gÀªÀjUÉ, oÁuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¤UÀæºÀ zÀ¼À, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ. ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, «µÀAiÀÄ: ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ PÀZÉÃjUÀ¼À°è £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀĪÀ CPÀæªÀÄ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ¼À PÀÄjvÀAvÉ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸ÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ. --*-- ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¤UÀæºÀ zÀ¼À, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ¥Éưøï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï DV PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ J¸ï.Dgï.«ÃgÉÃAzÀæ¥Àæ¸Ázï DzÀ vÀªÀÄä°è ªÀÄ£À« ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ, ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¤UÀæºÀ zÀ¼ÀzÀ PÀZÉÃjUÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀݪÁV ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ªÀiËTPÀ PÀgÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiËTPÀ zÀÆgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ §gÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀ »£À߯ÉAiÀÄ°è 13 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ°è £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀĪÀ CPÀæªÀÄ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ¼À PÀÄjvÀAvÉ ¨sÁwäÃzÁgÀgÀgÀ ªÀÄÄSÉãÀ ºÁUÀÆ RÄzÁÝV ªÀiÁ»w ¸ÀAUÀ滸À¯ÁV, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ°è PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ PÉ®ªÀÅ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ SÁ¸ÀV ªÀåQÛUÀ½UÉ CPÀæªÀĪÁV C£ÀÄPÀÆ®ªÁUÀĪÀAvÉ PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. PÉ®ªÀÅ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨sÀæµÀÖ ºÁUÀÆ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀ ¸ÁzsÀ£ÀUÀ¼À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ C¥ÁæªÀiÁtÂPÀªÁV ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjUÉ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À ºÀAaPÉ PÁ®zÀ°è ¹.J jf¸ÀÖgïUÀ¼À°è CPÀæªÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV wzÀÄÝ¥Àr¹ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ vÀªÀÄUÉ ¨ÉÃPÁzÀªÀjUÉ C£ÀÄPÀÆ® ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ w½zÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀªÀðd¤PÀjAzÀ ªÀ¸ÀƯÁUÀĪÀ ±ÀÄ®ÌUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DzsÁgÀ gÀ»vÀªÁV/PÀ°àvÀªÁV £ÀªÀÄÆr¢¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ °Ã¸ï PÀA ¸Éïï rÃqï (J¯ï.¹.J¸ï.r) £À°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÀÆ, C¨ïì®Æåmï ¸Éïï rÃqï (J.J¸ï.r) £À°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄUÀ½UÀÆ ªÀåvÁå¸À EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ w½zÀħA¢zÀÄÝ, ©rJ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀªÀÄUÉ ¨ÉÃPÁzÀªÀjUÉ C£ÀÄPÀÆ® ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ w½zÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. SÉÆnÖ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Àȶֹ FUÁUÀ¯Éà ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVgÀĪÀ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀÄ£À: C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀåQÛUÀ½UÉ ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ w½zÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjAzÀ ¸ÀAUÀ滸ÀĪÀ ºÀtzÀ°è ¤UÀ¢vÀ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢vÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ReÁ£ÉUÉ dªÀiÁ ªÀiÁqÀzÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ w½zÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¤ªÉñÀ£À ºÀAaPÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÁgÀzÀ±ÀðPÀvÉ E®èzÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢zÀÄÝ, ºÀAaPÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Á°¸ÀzÉà PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁV ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, EzÀjAzÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Ý ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ / ¸ÀPÁÀðgÀPÉÌ C¥ÁgÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁtzÀ DyðPÀ £ÀµÀÖªÀÅAmÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ w½zÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À ªÀÄgÀÄ ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀÄ°è ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ ¯ÉÆÃ¥À zÉÆõÀUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ w½zÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. §zÀ° ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä PÁ£ÀƤ£À°è CªÀPÁ±À E®èzÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ®Æè PÀÆqÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁV §zÀ° ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CPÀæªÀÄ ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ w½zÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. »ÃUÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Ý ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ PÉ®ªÀÅ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, vÀªÀÄä C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ SÁ¸ÀV ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ±Á«ÄïÁV, ©rJUÉ /¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ©rJ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ½UÉ «gÀÄzÀݪÁV vÀªÀÄä ¸Àé»vÁ¸ÀQÛUÁV SÁ¸ÀVAiÀĪÀjUÉ ¨sÀæµÀÖ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀ ¸ÁzsÀ£ÀUÀ¼À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ vÀ¥ÁàV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C¥ÀæªÀiÁtÂPÀªÁV ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, vÀªÀÄUÉ ªÀ»¹PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀªÀÄä ¤AiÀÄAvÀætzÀ°ègÀĪÀ ¸ÀPÁðj ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß C¥ÁæªÀiÁtÂPÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÆøÀ¢AzÀ zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Ý ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ/¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ PÉÆÃmÁåAvÀvÀgÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À £ÀµÀÖªÀÅAlÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ w½zÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ©.r.J£À ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ «¨sÁUÀzÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ CªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀqɸÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, ªÀ±À¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀĪÀ°è zÉÆqÀØ ¥ÀæªÀiÁtzÀ CªÀåªÀºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß 14 £ÀqɸÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÁV w½zÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. C®èzÉ ©rJ zÀ°è CPÀæªÀĪÁV ºÀtzÀ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÁV ¸ÀºÀ ªÀiÁ»w w½zÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ©rJ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À C¥ÀæªÀiÁtÂPÀvÀ£À¢AzÀ £ÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀÄ, ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ, ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀzÀ°è d«ÄãÀÄ PÀ¼ÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ gÉÊvÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ©rJ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÝ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀÝ°è ªÀÄÄAzÉ ©rJzÀ°è ¨ÁQ EgÀĪÀ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀ D¹ÛUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀ PÉ®¸ÀUÀ½UÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀiÁUÀ§ºÀÄzÉA§ PÁgÀt¢AzÀ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä »AdjAiÀÄÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħgÀÄwÛgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ »vÀzÀȶ֬ÄAzÀ F §UÉÎ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹PÉÆAqÀÄ PÀÆqÀ¯É ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Ý ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ «¨sÁUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ G¥À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð – 1, G¥À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð – 2, G¥À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð-3 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ G¥À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð-4 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À PÀZÉÃjUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É zÁ½ ªÀiÁrzÀ°è CPÀæªÀÄ ºÀtzÀ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ, ªÀÄzÀåªÀwðUÀ¼À ºÁUÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ EvÁå¢UÀ¼ÀÄ zÉÆgÀPÀªÀÅ ¸ÁzÀåvÉUÀ½gÀÄvÀÛªÉ. ¸À»/- 19/11/2021 [J¸ï.Dgï.«ÃgÉÃAzÀæ¥Àæ¸Ázï] Police Inspector Anti-Corruption Bureau Bengaluru City Police Station Bengaluru.” (sic) (Emphasis added) The complaint is by the Police Inspector of the then Anti-Corruption Bureau. It is upon the said complaint a search is conducted in the house and other addresses of the petitioner which leads to securing a diary. The diary contains the name of the petitioner. The diary then leads to two other places of the petitioner. A detailed search and seizure panchanama is drawn. Several documents, gold and other jewelry are found which forms part of the capture in the panchanama. The search is conducted on 22-03-2022, 4 months after registration of the crime which was on 19-11-2021. The 15 moment search is conducted, the petitioner approaches this Court in Writ Petition No.7994 of 2022. This Court interdicts further investigation against the petitioner. The coordinate Bench, in terms of its order dated 02-02-2023, allows the writ petition. It becomes germane to notice the order so passed by the coordinate Bench. It reads as follows: “…. …. …. 5. Considered the submissions. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Sirajuddin (supra) at para-17 has held as follows: "17. In our view the procedure adopted against the appellant before the laying of the first information report though not in terms forbidden by law, was so unprecedented and outrageous as to shock one's sense of justice and fairplay. No doubt when allegations about dishonesty of a person of the appellant's rank were brought to the notice of the Chief Minister it was his duty to direct as enquiry into the matter. The Chief Minister in our view pursued the right course. The High Court was not impressed by the allegation of the appellant that the Chief Minister was moved to take an initiative at the instance of person who was going to benefit by the retirement of the appellant and who was said to be a relation of the Chief Minister. The High Court rightly held that the relationship between the said person and the Chief Minister, if any, was so distant that it could not possibly have influenced him and we are of the same view. Before a public servant, whatever be his status, is publicly charged with acts of dishonesty which amount to serious misdemeanour or misconduct of the type alleged in this case and a first information is lodged against him, there must be some suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegations by a responsible officer. The lodging of such a report against a person, specially one who like the appellant occupied the top position in a department, even if baseless, would do incalculable harm not only to the officer in 16 particular but to the department he belonged to, in general. If the Government had set up a Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Department as was done in the State of Madras and the said department was entrusted with enquiries of this kind, no exception can of taken to an enquiry by officers of this department but any such enquiry must proceed in a fair and reasonable manner. The enquiring officer must not act under any preconceived idea of guilt of the person whose conduct was being enquired into or pursue the enquiry in such a manner as to lead to an inference that he was bent upon securing the conviction of the said person by adopting measures which are of doubtful validity or sanction. The means adopted no less than the end to be achieved must be impeccable. In ordinary departmental proceedings against a Government servant charged with delinquency, the normal practice before the issue of a charge- sheet is for some one in authority to take down statements of persons involved in the matter and to examine documents which have a bearing on the issue involved. It is only thereafter that a charge-sheet is submitted and a full-scale enquiry is launched. When the enquiry is to be held for the purpose of finding out whether criminal proceedings are to be restored to the scope thereof must be limited to the examination of persons who have knowledge of the affairs of the delinquent officer and documents bearing on the same to find out whether there is prima facie evidence of guilt of the officer. Thereafter the ordinary law of the land must take its course and further inquiry be proceeded with in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure by lodging a first information report. 7. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of K.R. Kumar Naik supra at paras-13 to 18 has held as follows: 13. The FIR is registered on 16-03-2022 and source information report is also drawn on 16-03-2022 which is ostensibly done at a jiffy. The Anti-Corruption Bureau which performs a very significant role in checking corruption amongst public servants cannot indulge itself in such casual act of drawing up the source information report on the instant, registering the FIR and conducting the search. The entire narration of allegation which would become criminal misconduct against the petitioner is on the basis of the records found in somebody else's house in connection with someone else's crime. Such a source information report against the petitioner is no report in the eye of law. 17 14. The law also contemplates conduct of a preliminary inquiry in cases of corruption alleged as against public servants. The Apex Court right from the judgment in the case of P. SIRAJUDDIN v. STATE OF MADRAS1 has clearly held that before a public servant, whatever be his status, is publicly charged with acts of dishonesty, some suitable preliminary inquiry into the allegations by a responsible officer should be made. It could be in the nature of source information report or otherwise. 8. The criminal prosecution against the petitioner - accused herein was launched on the basis of diary seized from the office of the Bangalore Development Authority, in which, an entry is allegedly made stating that, the petitioner had taken four files and returned one file and the phone number of the petitioner is reflected in the entry. 9. On the basis of the entry in the diary, the first search was conducted on the premises of the petitioner and no incriminating materials were found nor seized during the search. On the same day, search warrant was issued stating that, at the time of searching, the premises of one Sri Ashwath, it was revealed that, incriminating documents will be recovered along with cash and other documents from the petitioner. Thereafter, the second search was conducted on a different premises of the petitioner and except, the property related documents no incriminating materials were found or seized from the petitioner. The coordinate Bench in the case of K R Kumar Naik (supra) has held that criminal prosecution cannot be launched on the basis of the records found in somebody else's house in connection with someone else's crime. 10. The entry in the diary cannot be the sole basis for conducting investigation in the absence of any other corroborative material to establish that the petitioner along with the officials of the BDA was involved in allotment of sites illegally. Though no incriminating materials were found nor seized, the respondent - Lokayukta has not closed the investigation against the petitioner, and the petitioner is constantly put under an 18 apprehension that the premises will be searched under the guise of investigation which would infringe his right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Unless and until any incriminating materials are available against the petitioner, the respondent - Lokayukta cannot repeatedly conduct search of the premises belonging to the petitioner under the guise of investigation of crime registered against the officials of the BDA. Hence, the continuation of the investigation under the impugned FIR will be an abuse of process of law and violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) Writ Petition is allowed. ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.55/2021 registered by the respondent No.2 pending on the file of the learned 23rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, Bangalore City (CCH-24) is hereby quashed. iii) Liberty is reserved with the respondent – Lokayukta to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, in the event if any incriminating materials are found against him with regard to allotment of sites illegally by the BDA.” (Emphasis supplied) The coordinate Bench holds that unless and until any incriminating material is available against the petitioner, continuation of investigation will be an abuse of the process of law and would violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, liberty was reserved to proceed in accordance with law, if need arises. 19 12. The petitioner, on 06-12-2023, writes to the Competent Authority seeking accord of sanction to prosecute the accused/Police Officers. The communication was founded upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K.S.Puttaswamy and several enactments. The said communication has remained a communication even today. The petitioner then knocks at the doors of the Special Court by registering a private complaint which is registered as P.C.R.No.11 of 2024. The learned Special Judge, in terms of his order dated 30-05-2024, takes cognizance of the offences. The order taking cognizance reads as follows: : ORDER: Cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 167, 219, 384, 448, 465, 466, 468, 469, 471, 506, 511, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is taken against accused No.1 to 7. Office is directed to register the case in Register No.III and then put up for furnishing the list of witnesses and issuance of process to accused No.1 to 7 by 4.6.2024.” (Emphasis added) 20 The learned Special Judge relies on the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of A.R.ANTULAY v. R.S.NAYAK and RAGHUNATH ANANT GOVILKAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA and holds that prior sanction as contemplated under Section 19 of the Act or under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., is not required for taking cognizance for the offences alleged and accordingly takes cognizance for the afore-quoted offences. The offences are an amalgam of both the Act and the Cr.P.C. 13. This was called in question in Criminal Petition No.5232 of 2024 by the officers against whom sanction was sought by the petitioner. This Court, in terms of its order dated 05-07-2024, allowed the petition by the following observation: “…. …. …. 13. As observed hereinabove, pursuant to registration of crime in Crime No.55 of 2021 search is conducted at several places including the office and residence of the respondent. If this were to be done without registration of crime in Crime No.55 of 2021, it would have been an action which is not in the discharge of official duty. The petitioners were officers of the ACB at the relevant point in time. They have searched the premises of the respondent by taking a search warrant from the hands of the concerned Court. Search was in pursuance of registration of crime, more so in the light of the fact that the crime was registered against unknown persons. The content of the crime was found in the 21 complaint but not pointed against any particular individual. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, it is in the discharge of official duties and not de hors of official duties. There is clear nexus between the acts alleged against the petitioners by the respondent and the position they held and the duty they performed. The merit of the matter is not what is submitted by either of the parties. It is only concerning sanction. If it is in the discharge of official duty and has nexus to such discharge, sanction for such prosecution under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. for offences other than under the Act is imperative, while it is mandatory for any offence under the Act. Therefore, sanction was required both under Section 19 of the Act or under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. …. …. …. 16. On a coalesce of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court quoted supra what would unmistakably emerge is, if there is no nexus with the acts alleged to the discharge of official duties sanction would not be required, but if it is in the discharge of official duties sanction would be imperative. In the light of the preceding analysis, it cannot but be said that the acts of these petitioners were in the discharge of their official duties. Therefore, sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., was undoubtedly imperative and for taking of cognizance Section 13 of the Act it is needless to observe, Section 19 of the Act is imperative to be followed. The concerned Court has misdirected itself in law in holding that sanction both, under Section 19 of the Act or under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., is not required. It has blissfully glossed over both the provisions of law. It is not that the respondent is not aware of the position of the law. Being aware, he has communicated not once but twice, seeking according of sanction to prosecute these petitioners. One of such communication is also placed on record by the respondent; it is dated 06-12-2023. The submission is that no sanction is accorded even as on date. 17. Section 19 of the Act supra indicates that the appropriate Government shall after receipt of communication 22 seeking sanction dispose of the said application within an outer limit of four months. Since sanction is pending consideration at the hands of the Competent Authority and sanction being necessary to take cognizance of the offence, the Court ought not to have taken cognizance of the offence against these petitioners, it has done in gross violation of law and misapplication of the judgments it so refers in the course of the order taking cognizance. As observed hereinabove, the only submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is, qua the order of taking of cognizance. The solitary ground urged is, the order being bad for want of sanction. Therefore, the order of taking of cognizance does get obliterated, but not the complaint. The contention of the learned senior counsel that if sanction is in place, further proceedings can go on, if there is no sanction, there can be no proceeding, merits complete acceptance. In the light of the preceding analysis, the order of taking of cognizance is rendered unsustainable and the unsustainability leads to its obliteration. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R (i) Criminal petition is allowed. (ii) The order of taking of cognizance dated 30- 05-2024 stands obliterated, in the light of the observations made in the course of the order. Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2024 also stands disposed.” (Emphasis supplied) As observed hereinabove, the petitioner had sought sanction from the hands of the Competent Authority to prosecute Police Officers. 23 The requisition for sanction dated 06-12-2023 is germane to be noticed. It reads as follows: “From, Sri. Mohan Kumar A S/o Late Ashwathaiah Aged about 47 years R/a No. 265, 2nd Block, 6th main, RT Nagar Bengaluru-560032 To, 1. Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Government of Karnataka Rep by: The Chief Secretary to the Government Room no. 320, 3rd floor, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru-560001 Subject Request to accord Sanction to prosecute Smt. Uma Prashanth, Superintendent of Police and Sri. Seemanth Kumar Singh, ADGP for defamation and malicious prosecution. Dear Sir/Madam, I would like to bring to your kind attention about a matter of grave concern that requires immediate action. The purpose of this letter of request is to seek your kind sanction to prosecute the following police officials who have been involved in serious violations of the provisions of law and misuse of power and abuse of process of law: 1. Smt. Uma Prashanth, Superintendent of Police, ACB, Kanija Bhavan, Race Course Road, Bengaluru, presently working as Davanagere Superintendent of Police. 24 2. Sri. Seemanth Kumar Singh, ADGP, ACB, Kanija Bhavan, Race Course Road, Bengaluru, presently working as ADGP, KSRP, Chief Officer, Nrupathunga road, Bengaluru. 2) The aforementioned officers were involved in the unlawful registration of FIR in Crime No. 55/2021 of A.C.B. Police Station, Bengaluru against unknown BDA officials and others, which led to an unjustified search of my residence without search warrant. I had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka seeking the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned FIR dated 19.11.2011 in Crime No. 55/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a), 7(A), 8, 12, 13(1)(a) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In addition to this, I have also sought for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the entire action of search and seizure conducted by the police officials on 22.03.2022, as well as the investigation, is illegal and without authority of law. Additionally, I have requested the Hon'ble High Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to conduct a detailed inquiry into the manner in which the entire investigation has been carried out and to identify the persons responsible for releasing and leaking the process of investigation, including details about the movable properties found in my residence. 3) I submit that, FIR dated 19/11/2021 is opposed to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs Govt. of UP and others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, as the said complaint lacks specific information and material to proceed against me, especially when the invoked offences are those of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The complaint lacks specific information to establish any criminal liability on my part, especially considering my status as a private individual, unconnected with the alleged crime. 4) In his report Dy. S. P. Mr. Thammaiah as stated that, there is immediate necessity to conduct investigation into the matter and accordingly a criminal case was registered on 19.11.2021. However, raid was conducted on 22.03.2022 belatedly. Non conducting of raid immediately after the registration the case itself is sufficient to show that no prima 25 facie case has been made out and hence raid was not conducted immediately. 5) It is worth noting that the FIR dated 19/11/2021 was transmitted to the Special Judge only on 25/11/2021, indicating 6 days delay in its submission. The delay has occasioned due to consultation with an intention to falsely implicate a private person like me in the crime. Furthermore, the FIR did not mention any specific government officer as an accused. 6) In order to conduct any search or seizure, credible information is required against a person to proceed against him. The individuals in question rely on the alleged diary alleged to have been seized in the office of the Deputy Secretary, BDA, on 20/11/2021, which allegedly contains my name. However, this information has not been produced before the High Court or the jurisdictional Special Judge to fulfil the conditions required for issuance of a search warrant. The contention they raise regarding finding my name, Mohan Kumar, in the said diary, without specific information about my identity, is an attempt to tarnish my reputation, as no action has been taken against any BDA official associated with the alleged diary. At the cost of repetition of fact, since from the inception, the officials of BDA were not cited as the accused in the matter including in the FIR. Without naming any one of the officers of BDA as the accused, conducting raid to the house of a private individual is unknown to criminal jurisprudence. Though the police officers named above alleged that, my name is mentioned in the diary, the said diary has not been reported to the Court as required under section 102 of Cr.P.C. Further the official from whom the alleged diary is seized, has not been named as the accused. 7) The search and seizure conducted by the police officers named above on 22/03/2022, after obtaining a search warrant from the jurisdictional Special Judge on 21/03/2022, are illegal, unjustifiable, and contrary to settled principles of criminal law. Even after acknowledging my absence in the mentioned premises, the Police ought not have raided the residential and office premises without obtaining a fresh search warrant. This search, along with the alleged material seized, is unrelated to the alleged crime and amounts to trespass and the same is contrary to cardinal principles of 26 investigation provided under relevant provisions of Cr.P.C. 8) It is appropriate to note that, there was no search warrant to conduct search to my residence where the officers named above conducted search. The same is highly arbitrary, illegal and the same amounts to violation of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It is also relevant to note that, during search no incriminating materials were seized from my residence or office. 9) The raid team seized my mobile phones and they have coerced me to provide my password for accessing it and the same is contrary to the law established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India, reported in 2017 (10) SCC Page 1, and the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No.11759/2020 dated 12/03/2021. The Police have failed to demonstrate any emergent circumstance justifying the search and seizure of my phones and coercing me to provide my password. This seizure violates my right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and the provisions of The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. The above process of seizure of mobile phones and obtaining passwords by coercion and without naming me as an accused in the case, is clear violation of above referred decisions. 10) The sections invoked in the impugned FIR and complaint are those of 7(a), 7(A), 8, 12, 13(1)(a), read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, even if the complaint is taken in its face value, no such allegations are made against me. Offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act necessitate demand for illegal gratification and acceptance thereof as prerequisites for establishing such offences. It is not the case of the A.C.B. that I have indulged in such practice. Furthermore, the officials of BDA have not made any such allegation against me. The report of Dy. S.P. which resulted in registration of the case is nothing but a pigment of imagination of the officers named above designed with a malafide intention to falsely implicate me. The impugned FIR and complaint conspicuously lacks 27 the twin requirements as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Shantamma vs State of Telangana, reported in 2022 (4) SCC 574, necessary to establish the said offences. 11) The actions of the police officials named above have not only violated my fundamental right guaranteed in Indian Constitution but also eroded public trust in law enforcement agencies. Such behaviour sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the very essence of criminal justice system and fairness that our democratic society upholds. 12) It has been declared by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in its judgment dated 02.02.2023 in WP 7994/2022, that the FIR was baseless and subsequently quashed. My innocence is indicated by the verdict of the Hon'ble High Court, as I had filed the writ petition seeking justice. The dictum of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka itself is sufficient to hold that, the accused name above have registered the false case and conducted the raid in contravention of the decisions of the Hon'ble higher Courts of this Nation. 13) What is particularly concerning is that the police officers named above have not only initiated an unjustified search but also illegally shared interior videos of my residence with media personnel without my consent. This resulted in the dissemination of false information, defamatory material, and unwarranted harassment to my family and myself in the public domain. Despite their knowledge that no incriminating materials were found during the search and that I was innocent, these officers displayed a clear disregard for ethical and legal boundaries. For this, the officials named above, needs to have give their explanation in the Court of Law. 14) In light of the above, I kindly request your esteemed office to grant necessary Sanction to prosecute the aforementioned police officers. Their actions have caused irreparable harm to me and my dignity in the society has been lowered. It is imperative that the rule of law should prevail, and those who are responsible for its violation should be held accountable and they should be subjected to the process of 28 prosecution so that the people should feel that investigating agency shall not conduct investigation on the basis of baseless allegations. 15) Hence, I humbly request your kindself that, prompt attention to this matter is eagerly anticipated, and I am confident that your intervention will ensure that justice shall prevail. Thank you for your time and consideration. Yours sincerely, Sd/- (Mohan Kumar A) Bengaluru Date:06-12-2023” (Emphasis added) The subject, in the application, clearly indicates that sanction to prosecute is sought for defamation and malicious prosecution. This is declined by the impugned communication dated 13-08-2024. It reads as follows: “ಕಾಟಕ ಸಾರ ¸ÀASÉå:¹D¸ÀÄE 337 J¸ï¦J¸ï 2023 ಕಾಟಕ ಸಾರದ ಸಾಲಯ, ಾನೌಧ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 13.08.2024 EªÀjAzÀ: ಸಾರದ ಮುಖ ಾಯದ, ಕಾಟಕ ಸಾರ ಾನೌಧ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ – 560 001. EªÀjUÉ: 29 ೕ ೕಹ ಕು!ಾ" ಎ., $ %ೇ' ಅಶ*ಥಯ R/AT No. 265, 2£Éà ¨ÁèPï, 6 £Éà ªÀÄÄRågÀ¸ÉÛ ಆ".-. ನಗರ, /ೆಂಗಳ2ರು – 560 032. !ಾನ3ೆ, ಷಯ: ೕ 5ೕ!ಾಂ6 ಕು!ಾ" 5ಂ7, ಐ.9.ಎ:. ಮತು< ೕಮ= ಉ!ಾ ಪ@ಾಂ6, ಐ.9.ಎ:. ಇವರ ರುದC ಅDEೕಜಾ ಮಂಜೂ3ಾ= Hೕಡುವ ಬKೆL. ಉ%ೆMೕಖ: 1. NಾವO ಸPM5ರುವ ಮನಗಳ Qಾಂಕ:06.12.2023, 06.03.2024, 04.04.2024 & 23.05.2024. 2. RS & ಐS9, ಕಾಟಕ ಇವರ ಪತ ಸಂTೆ: UೆV Dgï JA (1)/7/108/ 2023- 24, ¢£ÁAPÀ:22.04.2024 3. RS9, %ೋಾಯುಕ< ಇವರ ಪತ ಸಂTೆ: LOK/DGP/Misc-01/2024, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 12.04.2024. <> <> <> WೕಲXಂಡ ಷಯೆX ಸಂಬಂY5ದಂNೆ. ೕ 5ೕ!ಾಂ6 ಕು!ಾ" 5ಂ7, ಐ.9.ಎ:. ಮತು< ೕಮ= ಉ!ಾ ಪ@ಾಂ6, ಐ.9.ಎ:. ಇವರುಗಳ ರುದC ಅDEೕಜಾ ಮಂಜೂ3ಾ= ೋZ NಾವO ಸಾರೆX ಸPM5ರುವ ಉ%ೆMೕಖ(1)ರ ಮನಗಳPMನ ಅಂಶಗಳ ಬKೆL ಉ%ೆMೕಖ (3) ರ ಪತದPM ಕಂRೆಾರು ವರ[ೆ/ಉತ<ರಗಳನು\ ಮUಾ H]ೇಶಕರು, ಕಾಟಕ %ೋಾಯುಕ< ಇವZಂದ ಪ^ೆದು ಪZೕPಸ%ಾ_]ೆ. ಮUಾ H]ೇಶಕರು, ಕಾಟಕ %ೋಾಯುಕ< ಇವರು HೕRರುವ ವರQಯPM ಪಸು<ತ, ಪಕರಣೆX ಸಂಬಂY5ದಂNೆ, aPೕ: ಅYಾZಗಳb ಾನೂHನ cೌಕ-dೊಳKೆ ಕತವ Hವe5ದುf Uಾಗೂ ತHTಾ ೇgೆಯPM NೆKೆದುೊಂRರುವ ಕಮಗಳPM hಾವO]ೇ ದುರು]ೆfೕಶ ಕಂಡು ಬರು=<ಲMಾದfZಂದ ಸದZ ಅYಾZಗಳ ರುದC ಅDEೕಜಾ ಮಂಜೂ3ಾ= ೋZರುವOದನು\ =ರಸXZಸುವಂNೆ iಾರಸುj !ಾRರುNಾ<3ೆ. ಸದZ ಅYಾZಗಳ ರುದC ಆ3ೋ95ರುವ ಅಂಶಗಳನು\ ಮತು< RS9 %ೋಾಯುಕ< ಇವZಂದ ಸದZ ಆ3ೋಪಗಳ ಕುZತು 5*ೕಕೃತಾ_ರುವ ಕಂRಕಾರು ವರ[ೆ/ ಉತ<ರಗಳನು\ ಸಮಗಾ_ ಪZೕPಸ%ಾ_]ೆ Uಾಗೂ ಮUಾ H]ೇಶಕರು, ಕಾಟಕ %ೋಾಯುಕ< ಇವರ 30 ವರQಯನು\ ಮತು< iಾರಸjನು\ ಅಂ_ೕಕZ5, ೕ 5ೕ!ಾಂ6 ಕು!ಾ" 5ಂ7, ಐ.9.ಎ:. ಮತು< ೕಮ= ಉ!ಾ ಪ@ಾಂ6, ಐ.9.ಎ:. ಇವರುಗಳನು\ ಅDEೕಜೆKೆ ಒಳಪRಸಲು ಅಹ ಪಕರಣವಲMೆಂದು ಪZಗm5 ಅDEೕಜಾ ಮಂಜೂ3ಾ= ೋZ ಸPMಸ%ಾದ ತಮn ಮನಯನು\ =ರಸXZಸ%ಾ_]ೆ ಎಂದು ತಮKೆ =oಸಲು H]ೇತಾ_]ೆfೕೆ. ತಮn ನಂಬುKೆಯ, ¸À»/- 13/8/2024 (ಾಗಪp ಎ:. ಪZೕ') ಸಾರದ ಅYೕನ ಾಯದ, 5ಬqಂQ ಮತು< ಆಡoತ ಸುಾರ[ೆ ಇ%ಾTೆ (¸ÉêÉUÀ¼ÀÄ-4)” After the said communication, the petitioner submits representations to the Chief Secretary seeking certain clarifications. Those representations come to be turned down by the impugned communication dated 07-10-2024. It reads as follows: “ಕಾಟಕ ಸಾರ EªÀjAzÀ: ಸಾರದ ಮುಖ ಾಯದ, ಕಾಟಕ ಸಾರ ಾನೌಧ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ – 560 001. EªÀjUÉ: ೕ ೕಹ ಕು!ಾ" ಎ., $ %ೇ' ಅಶ*ಥಯ R/AT No. 265, 2£Éà ¨ÁèPï, 6 £Éà ªÀÄÄRågÀ¸ÉÛ ಆ".-. ನಗರ, /ೆಂಗಳ2ರು – 560 032. !ಾನ3ೆ, ಷಯ: ೕ 5ೕ!ಾಂ6 ಕು!ಾ" 5ಂ7, ಐ.9.ಎ:. ಮತು< 31 ೕಮ= ಉ!ಾ ಪ@ಾಂ6, ಐ.9.ಎ:. ಇವರ ರುದC ಅDEೕಜಾ ಮಂಜೂ3ಾ= Hೕಡುವ ಬKೆL. ಉ%ೆMೕಖ: 1. NಾವO ಸPM5ರುವ ಮನಗಳ Qಾಂಕ:06.12.2023, 06.03.2024, 04.04.2024 , 23.05.2024, 13.08.2024 & 28.08.2024. 2. RS & ಐS9, ಕಾಟಕ ಇವರ ಪತ ಸಂTೆ: UೆV Dgï JA (1)/7/108/ 2023- 24, ¢£ÁAPÀ:22.04.2024 3. RS9, %ೋಾಯುಕ< ಇವರ ಪತ ಸಂTೆ: LOK/DGP/Misc-01/2024, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 12.04.2024 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢:27.08.2024. 4. ¸ÀªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ:13.08.2024. 5. ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ §gÉAiÀįÁzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ:07.10.2024 <> <> <> WೕಲXಂಡ ಷಯೆX ಸಂಬಂY5ದಂNೆ, ೕ 5ೕ!ಾಂ6 ಕು!ಾ" 5ಂ7, ಐ.9.ಎ:. ಮತು< ೕಮ= ಉ!ಾ ಪ@ಾಂ6, ಐ.9.ಎ:, ಇವರುಗಳ ರುದC ಅDEೕಜಾ ಮಂಜೂ3ಾ= ೋZ NಾವO ಸಾರೆX ಸPM5ರುವ ಮನಗಳನು\ ಪZೕP5 ತಮn ಮನಯನು\ =ರಸXZಸ%ಾ_]ೆ ಎಂದು Qಾಂಕ: 13.08.2024 ರ ಪತದPM ಈKಾಗ%ೇ ತಮKೆ =oಸ%ಾ_ದುf ಸದZ eಂಬರಹವನು\ ಪOನ" ಉಚtZಸ%ಾ_]ೆ. ಮುಂದುವ3ೆದು, Qಾಂಕ: 28.08.2024 ರ ತಮn ಪತದPM ೋZರುವ 5 UೆಚುtವZ ಅಂಶಗಳ ಬKೆL ¸Àà¶ÖÃಕರಣವನು\ ತಮKೆ ಒದ_ಸುವಂNೆ %ೋಾಯುಕ< ಸಂೆuKೆ ಪತ ಬ3ೆಯ%ಾ_ದುf, ಈ ಬKೆL %ೋಾಯುಕ< ಸಂೆuಯನು\ ೇರಾ_ ಸಂಪvಸಬಹು]ೆಂದು ತಮKೆ =oಸಲು H]ೇತಾ_]ೆfೕೆ. ತಮn ನಂಬುKೆಯ, ¸À»/- 7/10/24 (ಾಗಪp ಎ:. ಪZೕ') ಸಾರದ ಅYೕನ ಾಯದ, 5ಬqಂQ ಮತು< ಆಡoತ ಸುಾರ[ೆ ಇ%ಾTೆ (ೇೆಗಳb-4)” It is these that are challenged in the cases at hand. 32 14. The issue in the lis would be, whether the State should be directed to accord sanction for prosecution by reconsideration of the representation of the petitioner? 15. The afore-narrated dates and events are a matter of record. The sanction that is sought by the petitioner has been turned down by the State. There are two different sanctions that are sought in these cases. In Writ Petition No.28337 of 2024, the representation of the petitioner which is quoted hereinbefore, is for according sanction for defamation and malicious prosecution. The subject in the communication is indicative of the said fact. The cue that the petitioner draws for defamation or malicious prosecution is from the order passed by the coordinate Bench. The order passed by the coordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.7994 of 2022 is again quoted hereinbefore. The coordinate Bench holds that continuation of investigation in crime No.55 of 2021 will be an abuse of the process of law and would violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned Judge did not stop at that, but reserved liberty to the respondent/Lokayukta therein to proceed against the 33 petitioner in accordance with law, if any incriminating material is found. The order reads as follows: “ORDER i) Writ Petition is allowed. ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.55 of 2021 registered by the respondent No.2 pending on the file of the learned 23rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, Bangalore City (CCH-24) is hereby quashed. iii) Liberty is reserved with the respondent – Lokayukta to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, in the event if any incriminating materials are found against him with regard to allotment of sites illegally by the BDA.” The order is clear that investigation was held to be an abuse, but the order contradicts by observing that liberty is reserved to the respondent, if any incriminating material is found against him (petitioner). Therefore, the finding of the learned judge that it is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India gets diluted. 16. The entire edifice of the claim of the petitioner seeking sanction to prosecute the officers named in the representation for malicious prosecution or defamation is based upon the afore-quoted order of the co-ordinate bench. After the said order, in the private 34 complaint, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance without sanction. Therefore, this Court had to step in and obliterate the order of the learned Magistrate with an observation that if sanction is granted, the proceedings can continue. Therefore, emerges two representations from the hands of the petitioner dated 04-04-2024 and 18-06-2024. They read as follows: “Date:04.04.2024 From, Mohan Kumar A S/o Late Ashwathaiah Aged about 47 years R/a No. 265, 2nd Block, 6th main, RT Nagar Bengaluru-560032 To, The Home Minister Government of Karnataka Vidhana Soudha Bengaluru-560001 Sir, On December 6, 2023, I submitted a formal request for sanction to prosecute Seemanth Kumar Singh IPS, Uma Prashanth IPS, to DPAR M K Thammaiah, S R Veerendra Prasad, Prakash Reddy, Manjunath Hoogar, Vijay Hadagali, police officers to Home department, detailing the grave concerns and circumstances surrounding the need for such action. However, despite the significant time elapsed since the submission of my request, I regret to inform you that I have not received any response from the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DPAR) and the Additional Chief Secretary (ACS) 35 Home. (Two letters dated 06.12.2023 is herein produced as Document no.1). The lack of response and delay in addressing this matter have deeply distressing. Not only has it perpetuated the harm caused to my reputation due to the actions of Seemanth Kumar Singh and others but it has also led to further complications in resolving this e expediently. I must emphasize the severity of the situation. The actions of Semanth Kumar Singh and others have not only tarnished my reputation but have also resulted in unwarranted legal proceedings against me. Despite the High Court’s decision to quash proceedings and the Lokayukta’s declaration that there is no basis for an appeal, the repercussions of these officers’ actions continue to linger, casting a shadow over my personal and professional life. (Copy of the WP no. 7994/2022, FIR, Complaint, Search warrant and Opinion of Lokayuktha is herein produced as Document no. 2 & 3 respectively). Moreover, it has come to my attention that these officers resorted to legal searches of my premises in an attempt to extort me, further exacerbating the injustice I have endured. Such actions not only violate ethical standards but also undermine the very fabric of our legal system. (Copy of RTI reply by Lokayuktha dated 03.02.2024, 08.02.2024 is herein produced as Document no.4). In light of these circumstances, I urge you to revisit my previous letter and expedite the process of according sanction for the prosecution of Seemanth Kumar Singh and others. It is imperative that swift and decisive action is taken to rectify this grave injustice and restore my faith in the integrity of our system. It is imperative to state that Chief Secretary has issued directions to DG & IG to expediate the process whereas no actions been taken till date. (Copy of the letter dated 12.03.2024 is herein produced as Document no.5). 36 I further submit that Deputy secretary had requested to submit documents relating to the issue at hand, obliging the same I have submitted documents on 07.03.2024 to DPAR. (The same is herein produced as Document no.6). It is also important to note that PCAS has also taken a decision not fit for appeal, regarding the same while writing a letter to DG & IG. (The copy of the letter dated 22.02.2024 is herein produced as Document no.7). The apex court in Criminal Appeal no. 256/2024 has held that Section 197 of Cr.PC applies only to acts in Discharge of Public Servant’s official duties, fabrication of documents not part of official duty. Though I could have proceeded without sanction for prosecution as per apex court’s judgement I have approached for sanction. I sincerely hope that you will give this matter the urgent attention it deserves and take necessary steps to ensure that justice prevails. I have visited the DG and IG office and Vidhana Soudha multiple times to follow up, but unfortunately, I have yet to receive any response Each time, I’ve been informed that the matter is still under process. Your prompt action in this regard would be greatly appreciated and would go a long way in alleviating the hardships I have endured. Yours Sincerely, Sd/- Mohan Kumar A” (Emphasis added) --------- “18/06/2024 TO Deputy Secretary, DPAR (Services) DPAR Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru-560001 37 From, Mohan Kumar. A, Son of late Ashwathaiah, Residing at 265, 2nd Block, 6th Cross, RT Nagar, Bengaluru 560 032. SUBJECT: Sanction Permission against former ACB Officials, Seemanth Kumar Singh, Uma Prashanth REF: 1. My letter dated 6.12.2023 seeking sanction permission. 2. My letter dated 6.4.2024 seeking sanction permission. Sir, In reference to the letters set forth in Ref (1) & (2) wherein I had sought for permission of sanction against the ACB (Anti Corruption Bureau) (former) officials and in continuance of the same, I would like to state that the prescribed period of 5 months held to be mandatory as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex court in Vijay Rajamohan v. CBI reported in (2023) 1 SCC 329 has elapsed yet no action has been taken to grant/reject sanction permission till date. It is also suffice to state, that while meticulously following up with the grant for sanction as is stated in the Ref (1) & (2), I have preferred a complaint before the Learned XXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, (P.C Act) Bengaluru (CCH-24) In PCR 11/2024 against the erring officers attached to the ACB (Anti Corruption Bureau). The Hon'ble Court was pleased to take cognizance of the said complaint for the offences under section 167, 219, 384, 448, 465, 468, 469, 471, 506, 511, and 120-b R/w section 13 of the PC Act, vide order dated 30.05.2024. As a consequence thereof, the said officials have challenged the order of cognizance-dated 30.05.2024 in Crl.P 5232/24 the prayer sought is culled out for ready reference: 38 "Therefore, the petitioners above named, humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records in PCR No.11/2024 presently on the file of the XXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, (P.C Act) Bengaluru (CCH -24) and further pleased to reverse and set aside the order dated 30.05.2024 passed in the case taking cognizance of the offence that are complained by the respondent against the petitioners in the private complaint fled by him before the Court and directing the Registry to put up the record of the case before the Court on 4.06.2024 for the purpose of issuance of process against the petitioners for their appearance in the case before the Court, in the ends of justice." Even though the prayer sought for, lacks clarity and is ambiguous, the said petition is now reserved for judgment without any interim order operation as on 12.6.2024. It is Imperative to state that the counsel of representing the officers, before the Hon'ble High Court, during the course of the submissions had also stated that the sanction has been rejected, without any basis or verification. In view of the developments cited above, it is Imperative that a decision is taken keeping in reference the letters cited supra along with the appended documents, in the interest of justice and the spirit of the law laid down by the Apex court in Vijay Rajamohan v. CBI reported in (2023) 1 SCC 329. Thank you, Sd/- Mohan Kumar A. Enclosed: vi. PCR 11/2024. vii. Order dated 30.05.2024 in PCR 11/2024. viii. Crl.P 5232/24 copy. ix. RTI Documents of DG Lokayuktha x. Vijay Rajamohan v. CBI reported in (2023) 1 SCC 329.” 39 The afore-quoted representations are in reiteration of the representation dated 06-12-2023. The claim of the petitioner is seeking the Government to revisit the letter and expedite the process of according sanction for prosecution of officers named therein. 17. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of VIJAY RAJAMOHAN and other cases are referred to, holding that the acts done by the Police Officers had nexus to the discharge of official duties and, therefore, they should be permitted to be prosecuted. I fail to understand as to why the petitioner is seeking prosecution of officers. The officers named are, M.K. Thammaiah, Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB; S.R. Veerendra Prasad, Police Inspector, ACB; R.Prakash Reddy, Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB; Manjunath G.Hugar, Inspector of Police, ACB; Vijaya Hadagali, Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB; Uma Prashanth, Superintendent of Police, ACB and Seemanth Kumar Singh, Additional Director General of Police, ACB. How are these officers are involved in the alleged acts is not divulged in the case at hand? For illustration, Seemanth Kumar Singh is in the rank of Additional 40 Director General of Police. The crime is registered before the jurisdictional Police Station. He is not the Station House Officer or the Officer in-charge of the Police Station. The Officer in-charge of the Police Station was one Aswath Gowda. Therefore, without any rhyme or reason, on the allegation that the officers named have acted in supervisory jurisdiction, the petitioner is wanting to drag them into the web of crime for defamation or malicious prosecution. If this is permitted, every alleged accused would after getting acquitted or informed of obliteration of crime will begin to initiate proceedings for defamation and malicious prosecution. If there were materials for the said purpose, it would have been an altogether different circumstance. There is not even a titter of material against the Police Officers, in the representation, for them to be dragged into the proceedings for defamation or malicious prosecution. 18. Sanction, in the case at hand, is rejected and rejection of sanction is challenged. None of the Police Officers against whom the petitioner has sought sanction are made parties in the present petitions. Ordinarily while seeking sanction or a mandamus directing consideration of representation seeking sanction, the 41 persons against whom sanction is sought need not be heard. But, in the case at hand, the representations of the petitioner are rejected. The rejection of sanction is what is challenged. Thus, the Police Officers ought to have been made party/respondents to these proceedings. Here lies the act of the petitioner which suffers from want of bona fides. On this score alone, the petitions could be non-suited. However, since matters are argued on their merit, I have considered merit of the matters as well. The representations are quoted hereinabove. Orders passed on the representations are also quoted hereinabove. They would not warrant any interference for the plain and simple reason that no competent Court has declared that the action against the petitioner was illegal, highhanded or had the ingredients of defamation or malicious prosecution. If liberty had not been reserved to draw the petitioner back into the web of crime, it would have been altogether different circumstance. The coordinate Bench reserves liberty. In that light, the very claim of the petitioner, seeking sanction to prosecute these officers, would tumble down. Finding no merit in the petitions and finding no warrant to interfere with the orders impugned, both the petitions viz., W.P.Nos.24171 42 of 2024 and 28337 of 2024 should necessary meet their rejection. WRIT PETITION NO.24169 of 2024: 19. The subject petition is preferred calling in question an endorsement dated 30-08-2024, which rejects the representation of the petitioner seeking sanction to prosecute certain officers. The genenis of the present petition lies in an order passed by the coordinate bench in Crl.P.No.9116 of 2021 filed by the present petitioner along with two others. 20. The issue related to registration of a crime against the petitioner in Crime No.254 of 2021 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 506 of the IPC. This is called in question immediately after registration of the crime in the aforesaid criminal petition. The same comes to be allowed by the order of the coordinate bench on 10-03-2023. The order reads as follows: “The FIR registered by the R.T. Nagar Police station for the offences under Section 406, 409, 420 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is impugned in this petition. 43 2. The summary of the FIR is: Complainant is representing the owners of the lands which were acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for formation of Arkavathi layout and the petitioner- accused No.1, operates in dealing with sites and lands belonging to the BDA, and accused No.2 offered to help the informant for disbursement of compensation in favour of the owners of lands which were acquired by the BDA. It was further alleged that, accused No.2 referred the complainant to the accused No.1 stating that, he would help the complainant in her endeavor to ensure that the compensation was paid to the respective property owners of the lands which were acquired. It was further alleged that, accused No.1 demanded a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/-for ensuring that the complainant would be able to hasten the process of compensation and also alleged that accused no.1 has demanded a further sum of Rs.20,00,000/- to be paid to accused No.3 as part of the process. It was further alleged that the complainant having paid total sum of Rs.1,70,00,000/-, the accused Nos.1 to 3 have not ensured to disburse the compensation to the owners. 3. Taking exception of the same, this petition is filed. 4. Mr. K.N. Phanindra, learned senior counsel for the petitioners counsel submits that against the very same verbatim allegations in the FIR, the informant had lodged a compliant with the Deputy Commissioner of Police and in turn, he had referred the complaint to the respondent no.1 to enquire into the allegations made in the complaint against the petitioners- accused herein. Hence, he submits that, the registration of the FIR on the very same set of allegations is impermissible and violative of Article 21 of Constitution of India. In support, he places reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah v. CBI and Anr. ((2013)6 SCC 348) and State of Mizoram -vs- C.Sangnghina, [(2019) 13 SCC 335 para 14]. He further submits that no material is placed to substantiate the allegation that money was parted to the accused No.1. 5. On the other hand, learned HCGP submits that the allegations made in the FIR clearly discloses the commission of 44 the cognizable offence and the veracity of the allegations requires to be investigated, and at this stage, registration of the FIR does not warrant any interference. 6. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The petitioner No.1-accused No.1 herein had lodged FIR for the offence under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC alleging that the petitioner was abused and threatened by the 2nd respondent, and the Police after investigation laid the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences. 8. Initially, the 2nd respondent had lodged the complaint with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Task Force, Bangalore Development Authority making the very same allegation made in the impugned FIR. The DSP, Special Task Force, BDA after conducting an enquiry, submitted a report stating that there is no material against the petitioners for having received the money from the complainant for ensuring disbursal of compensation. 9. Thereafter the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Division, Bengaluru City on 18.10.2021, and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, in turn directed the Police Inspector of R.T. Nagar Police station to look into the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. The Police Inspector, R.T. Nagar Police Station, issued notice to the petitioners to give explanation to the allegations made in the complaint. The petitioners submitted the explanation on 1.11.2021 with the R.T. Nagar Police Station. 10. Thereafter, suppressing the complaint lodged with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, the 2nd respondent lodged the impugned FIR making the very same verbatim allegation that was made in the complaint filed with the Deputy Commissioner of Police. 45 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah supra at paragraph 58.5 has held as follows: "58.5. The first information report is a report which gives first information with regard to any offence. There cannot be second FIR in respect of the same offence/event because whenever any further information is received by the investigating agency, it is always in furtherance of the first FIR." 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Mizoram supra at paragraph 14 has held as follows: "14. Under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. Section 300 CrPC lays down that a person once convicted or acquitted, cannot be tried for the same offence. In order to bar the trial of any person already tried, it must be shown — (i) that he has been tried by a competent court for the same offence or one for which he might have been charged or convicted at that trial, on the same facts; (ii) that he has been convicted or acquitted at the trial; and (iii) that such conviction or acquittal is in force. Where the accused has not been tried at all and convicted or acquitted, the principles of “double jeopardy” cannot be invoked at all." 13. Hence lodging of the multiple FIRs by making verbatim allegations is violative of fundamental rights of the petitioners under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as well as an abuse of statutory power of investigation. 14. There is no material produced along with the FIR to substantiate the allegation that the petitioners-accused received a total sum of Rs. 1,70,00,000/- from the 2nd respondent on the pretext that they would help in her endeavor to ensure that the compensation would be paid to the respective property owners of the lands which were acquired by BDA. 15. To constitute an offence of cheating, there must be a dishonest intent to cheat from inception. In the instant case, there is no allegation that the accused herein had induced the complainant to part with the money with an intention to cheat. 46 16. In the absence of any material that there was any misappropriation of property by the petitioners-accused, the registration of the FIR for the offence under Sections 406, 409, 420 & 506 of IPC is impermissible and also the lodging of the subsequent impugned FIR on the very same set of allegation is impermissible and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 17. In view of the above, the continuation of the investigation against the accused herein will be an abuse of process of law. 18. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) Criminal Petition is allowed ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.254/2021 registered by the Respondent-R.T.Nagar Police against the accused Nos.1 to 3 is hereby quashed. In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.NO.1/2022 does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.” Immediately after the disposal of the aforesaid petition, a representation springs from the hands of the 1st petitioner on 05- 06-2023 seeking request to sanction to file case of defamation and malicious prosecution. The reason in the representation is, that the 1st petitioner or the petitioners in criminal petition had been falsely implicated by registration of the crime. The crime no doubt comes to be quashed, but quashment of the crime would not mean that 47 the officers who had performed their duty in taking action pursuant to the registration of the crime will be hauled up for defamation or malicious prosecution, unless there is abundant material found in the order which quashed the proceedings, apart from holding that it was a case of defaming the petitioner or permitting the accused to initiate malicious prosecution. None of those instances have happened. All that the aforesaid order observed was lodging of multiple FIRs by making verbatim similar allegations against the petitioners therein would become violative of Article 21 of the Constituton of India. Barring this, nothing is observed and the FIR is quashed at the investigation stage. 21. The representation of the petitioner in the subject petition comes to be rejected by the following endorsement dated 30-08-2024. The endorsement reads as follows: “¸ÀASÉå: HD/224/PEG/ 2024-PS_A ಕಾಟಕ ಸಾರದ ಸಾಲಯ, ಾನ ೌಧ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, Qಾಂಕ: 30-08-2024 eಂಬರಹ eಂಬರಹ eಂಬರಹ eಂಬರಹ ಷಯ: ೕಮ= Zೕಾ ಸುವಣ, ಎ59, ಅಶ*wKೌಡ, aPೕ: HZೕxಕರು ಮತು< ಾಯಕ yಾ-ೕz, ಐ.9.ಎ: ಇವರುಗಳ ರುದC ಅDEೕಜಾ 48 ಮಂಜೂ3ಾ= HೕಡುವಂNೆ ೋZ ೕ ೕಹ ಕು!ಾ".ಎ ಇವರು ಸPM5ರುವ ಮನ ಕುZತು. ಉ%ೆMೕಖ: Hಮn ಮನ Qಾಂಕ:18.06.2024 ಮತು< 18.07.2024. ****** WೕಲXಂಡ ಷಯೆX ಸಂಬಂY5ದಂNೆ, ಉ%ೆMೕ{ತ ತಮn ಮನ ಪತಗಳನು\ ಪZೕPಸ%ಾ_ರುತ<]ೆ. ಾhಾಲಯದPM Tಾಸ_ ದೂರು ]ಾಖPಸುವ ದಲು Uಾಗೂ !ಾನ ಾhಾಲಯದ H]ೇಶನಲM]ೇ ಸಾರದ ಅDEೕಜಾ ಮಂಜೂ3ಾ= ೋZರುವOದು ಸಮಂಜಸಾ_ರುವOQಲM. ಆದfZಂದ ಈ ಹಂತದPM ಅDEೕಜಾ ಮಂಜೂ3ಾ= HೕಡುವOದು ಸೂಕ<ಾ_ರುವOQಲM ಎಂದು ಅDyಾ|5 ಅDEೕಜಾ ಮಂಜೂ3ಾ= ೋZ ಸPM5ರುವ Hಮn ಮನಯನು\ =ರಸXZ5]ೆ ಎಂದು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ =o5]ೆ. ¸À»/- 30/8/24 ($.ೆ. ಭುವೇಂ€ ಕು!ಾ") ಸಾರದ ಅYೕನ ಾಯದ (ಪ), ಒgಾಡoತ ಇ%ಾTೆ (aPೕ: ೇೆಗಳb-ಎ).” The endorsement indicates that prior to registration of the crime and after registration of the crime, unless there is a direction from the Court, sanction cannot be granted. Though the endorsement is not happily worded, the petitioner is now wanting to seek prosecution against 3 persons, who according to him, were the reason for registration of the crime. One of whom is the Assistant commissioner of Police and the other Deputy Commissioner of Police. It is ununderstandable as to how the Assitant Commissioner of Police or the Deputy Commissioner of Police can be equated to 49 the officer in-charge of the police station one Sri Ashwath Gowda. As observed hereinabove, even the officer-in-charge of the police station has performed his duty. Performance of duty, unless the constitutional Courts would find that it was a clear case of malicious prosecution, the Court is of the considered view that there cannot be proceedings for malicious prosecution. Therefore, the petiton lacking in merit and for the manifold reasons rendered in the companion petition stands rejected. 22. In the light of the preceding analysis in each of the petitions, all the Writ Petitions stand rejected. Pending applications if any, also stand disposed, as a consequence. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp