- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4234 WP No. 200640 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 200640 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN SRI.H.D.NARAYANASWAMY S/O DODDAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS OCC: RETIRED VICE-CHANCELLOR KARNATAKA VETERINARY ANIMAL AND FISHERIES SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, BIDAR DIST. PRESENTLY R/AT NO.187, NET LAYOUT 2ND PHASE, RAJIVGANDHI NAGAR BENGALURU NORTH – 560 097 PERMANENT R/AT HOOGALAGERA VILLAGE, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLARA DIST – 563 138 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE AND SRI.SACHIN M.MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION BIDAR DIST. REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR KARNATAKA LAKAYUKTA POLICE STATION, OLD CMC BUILDING STATION ROAD, AMBEDKAR CIRCLE BIDAR – 585 401. 2. SRI.BABASAHEB PATIL S/O SUBHASH PATIL Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4234 WP No. 200640 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS POLICE INSPECTOR – 3 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION OLD CMC BUILDING STATION ROAD, AMBEDKAR CIRCLE BIDAR – 585 401 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.GOURISH S.KHASHAMPUR, SPL.PP. FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE FIR AND COMPLAINT/SOURCE REPORT (BEARING NO.02/SOURCE VARADI-05/KA.LO./BI/2023 DATED 11.10.2023) IN CRIME NO. 10/2023 DATED 02.12.2023 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT/LOKAYUKTA POLICE, BIDAR AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN WHO IS ARRAYED AS ACCUSED ALLEGING THE COMMISSION OF OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 13(1)(b) READ WITH 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 (AMENDMENT 2018) PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONOURABLE PRINCIPAL SPECIAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COURT OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR, INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED IS CONCERNED (PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURES-A AND B) THIS PETITION HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 27.03.2025 AT KALABURAGI BENCH, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4234 WP No. 200640 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the FIR in Crime No.10/2023 registered by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘P.C Act’). Factual matrix of the case: 2. The petitioner was appointed as an Instructor at Veterinary College, Bengaluru in the year 1991. The wife of the petitioner, namely, Smt.Pramila was working as an Associate Professor in GKVK at Bengaluru. The petitioner had worked at different places and repatriated to the parent department in the year 2022 and retired in the month of March 2023. 3. It is further stated that both the petitioner and his wife are the income tax assessee. It is stated that the respondent police have collected the source report, as per the said source report, the petitioner had possessed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4234 WP No. 200640 of 2024 disproportionate assets worth of 202.04%. Hence, a complaint came to be registered against the petitioner. The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.10/2023 for the above said offences. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing the FIR. 4. Heard Sri.P.Prasanna Kumar and Sri.Sachin M.Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Gourish S.Khashampur, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 – Lokayukta. 5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR registered by the respondent police is beyond its jurisdiction and contrary to Section 17 of the P.C Act, 1988. As per the said provision, the Superintendent of Police has to authorize the Investigating Officer to conduct the investigation. Unless such an order is obtained, the Investigating Officer ought not to have conducted the investigation. Even assuming that the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation without a proper sanction order, the said investigation has to be vitiated. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4234 WP No. 200640 of 2024 6. It is further submitted that the sanction has not been accorded by the authorities on proper application of mind. Therefore, the said sanction has to be vitiated. 7. It is further submitted that FIR has to be followed by the preliminary enquiry. Unless, there is a preliminary enquiry, registration of the FIR cannot be permitted. Such being the law, registration of FIR, without conducting a preliminary enquiry would also be held to be illegal and the same has to be quashed. 8. It is further submitted that the source report dated 11.10.2023 submitted by the second respondent would indicate that most of the properties mentioned in the source report are not standing in the name of the petitioner. However, the Investigating Officer considered all the properties and the accused is stated to have accumulated the disproportionate assets, which is improper and unacceptable. As such, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to quash the proceedings. Moreover, the check period has been considered inadvertently without proper application of mind. Therefore, the entire proceedings has to be quashed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4234 WP No. 200640 of 2024 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner to substantiate his arguments has relied on the following judgments: 1) Nirankar Nath Pandey v. State of UP1 2) M.Shivashankaramurthy v. State2 3) State by Karnataka Lokayukta PS v. Nataraja.S3 4) State of Maharashtra v. Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla4 5) Channakeshava H.D v.State of Karnataka5 6) K.R.Kumar Naik v. State by ACB6 7) Pramod Kumar N.G v. State of Karnataka7 8) Gopal v. State & Anr.8 9) Ramesh Bhimappa Agadi v. State & Anr.9 10) Raghappa Lalappa Lamani v. State & Anr.10 11) Smt.Rajashree v. State of Karnataka11 12) Shivananda @ Peerappa v. State of Karnataka12 Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 10. Per contra, learned Special Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 – Lokayukta filed the statement of objections and he 1 SLP Crl No.10101/2024 (DD : 04.12.2024) 2 Crl.P No.1019/2024 (DD : 25.04.2024) 3 SLP (Crl) Dairy No.47625/2024 4 1987 (Supp) SCC 379 5 WP No.28052/2023 (DD : 25.04.2024) 6 WP No.7911/2022 (DD : 26.07.2022) 7 WP No.16028/2023 (DD : 14.12.2023) 8 WP No.100261/2025 (DD : 13.02.2025) 9 WP No.100259/2025 (DD : 13.02.2025) 10 WP No.102735/2025 (DD : 13.02.2025) 11 WP No.105404/2023 (DD : 13.02.2025) 12 WP No.100290/2025 (DD : 13.02.2025) - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4234 WP No. 200640 of 2024 further submitted that at the time of considering the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court should not examine the cases which lead to conviction, but, to consider whether there is a prima-facie case. 11. It is further submitted that in a case where the disproportionate assets are concerned, the burden lies on the accused to prove the known sources of income. This is a departure from the principle of criminal law. 12. It is further submitted that since the case is of disproportionate assets, the same has to be tested through the trial. Before conducting the trial, the entire documents collected by the Investigating Officer filed in the form of charge-sheet cannot be appreciated or in other words, mini trial at the stage of considering the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C ought not to be conducted. 13. In support of his case, he relied on the following judgments: a. State by Dy.SP, Vigilance and ACB v. G.Easwaran13 b. State of Tamil Nadu v. R.Soundirarasu and others14 13 Crl.Appeal No.1405/2019 (DD 26.03.2025) - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4234 WP No. 200640 of 2024 c. State of Karnataka v. T.N.Sudhakar Reddy15 d. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi and Another16 e. State of Chhattisgarh and Another v. Aman Kumar Singh and Others17with Uchit Sharma V/s State of Chattisgarh and Others18 f. State of Karnataka v. L.C.Nagaraj19 g. Sanju Rajan Nayar v. Jayaraj20 Making such submissions, learned Special Prosecutor for respondents - Lokayukta prays to dismiss the petition. 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the materials available on record, now, it is relevant to advert to the facts of the case. 15. The petitioner was working as Vice Chancellor of Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Sciences University, Bidar. 16. During his tenure, he stated to have amassed disproportionate assets to the extent of 202.04% which is 14 (2023) 6 SCC 768 15 Crl.A No.5001/2024 16 (2021) 6 SCC 135 17 Crl.A Nos.646-48/2023 18 (2023) 6 SCC 559 19 SLP (Crl) Dairy No.37568/2023 20 2024 SCC Online 582 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4234 WP No. 200640 of 2024 considered as excess to his known source of income. The said fact has been founded through the source report. Being aggrieved by the registration of FIR, the petitioner approached this Court for quashing the FIR contending inter-alia that the check period is invalid, preliminary enquiry has not been conducted and the source report is also invalid etc. 17. In this context, it is relevant at this stage to refer the proposition of law in the case of STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION CHENNAI CITY – I DEPARTMENT v/s. G.EASWARAN21, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph Nos.7, 8, 9 and 14, which read as under: “7. It is not in dispute that the Special Court, while dismissing the discharge application, as well as the High Court while dismissing the revision petition, arrived at clear findings that there was a prima facie case, and this conclusion was drawn after examining the allegations as they stand. The impugned order operates against the established law that while the bar under section 397(3) of the CrPC does not curtail the remedy under Section 21 2025 INSC 397 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4234 WP No. 200640 of 2024 482, it is trite that inherent powers must be exercised sparingly. This Court, in Krishnan v. Krishnaveni reported in (1997) 4 SCC 241, has held: “8. The object of Section 483 and the purpose behind conferring the revisional power under Section 397, read with Section 401, upon the High Court is to invest continuous supervisory jurisdiction so as to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularity of the procedure or to mete out justice. In addition, the inherent power of the High Court is preserved by Section 482. The power of the High Court, therefore, is very wide. However, the High Court must exercise such power sparingly and cautiously when the Sessions Judge has simultaneously exercised revisional power under Section 397(1)…. 10. Ordinarily, when revision has been barred by Section 397(3) of the Code, a person — accused/complainant — cannot be allowed to take recourse to the revision to the High Court under Section 397(1) or under inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code since it may amount to circumvention of the provisions of Section 397(3) or Section 397(2) of the Code…As stated earlier, it may be exercised sparingly so as to avoid needless multiplicity of procedure, unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of proceedings. The object of criminal trial is to render public justice, to punish the criminal and to see that the trial is concluded expeditiously before the memory of the witness fades out…” (emphasis supplied) 8. In a later decision in Renu Kumari v. Sanjay Kumar reported in (2008) 12 SCC 346, where the High Court - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4234 WP No. 200640 of 2024 had entertained and allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. in similar circumstances to quash the proceedings after a petition for discharge was dismissed by the Magistrate and the subsequent revision petition was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, this Court set aside the High Court's quashing order and held as follows: “9. (….) In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings: (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. (AIR p. 869) In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4234 WP No. 200640 of 2024 sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge…It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with…” (emphasis supplied) 9. In the present case, the inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings was invoked after the dismissal of the discharge application and the consequent revision petition. In State by Karnataka Lokayukta, Police Station, Bengaluru v. M.R. Hiremath reported in (2019) 7 SCC 515, this Court examined a similar situation where the High Court entertained a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. filed against the dismissal of a discharge petition. Setting aside the judgment of the High Court, this Court held: “25. The High Court ought to have been cognizant of the fact that the trial court was dealing with an application for discharge under the provisions of Section 239 CrPC. The parameters which govern the exercise of this jurisdiction have found expression in several decisions of this Court. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4234 WP No. 200640 of 2024 existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. In State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan9, adverting to the earlier decisions on the subject, this Court held: 29. … At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage. 26. For the above reasons we are of the view that the appeal would have to be allowed. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the High Court dated 27- 4-2017….We accordingly maintain the order passed by the learned trial Judge on 5-12-2016 dismissing the discharge application filed by the respondent.” 14. Thus, there is no doubt that the High Court committed an error in quashing the prosecution on the ground that the sanction to prosecute is illegal and invalid. In conclusion, we find that the objections raised in the revision petition against the Special Court's order dismissing the discharge application were identical to the grounds raised in the petition - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4234 WP No. 200640 of 2024 under Section 482 Cr. P.C., from which the present appeal arises. Second, apart from being congruent and overlapping, the respondent could not demonstrate any material change in facts and circumstances between the dismissal of the revision petition by the High Court and the filing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Third, the validity of the sanction can always be examined during the course of the trial and the problems due to the typographical error as alleged by the State could have been explained by producing the file at the time of trial. Fourth, it is settled that a mere delay in the grant of sanction for prosecuting a public authority is not a ground to quash a criminal case.” 18. On careful reading of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at the time of considering the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to see whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused based on the materials. It is needless to say that, at the time of considering the said petition, the Court cannot look into the materials available for the defence. 19. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Superintendent of Police has not applied proper mind in granting the sanction required as per Section 17 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4234 WP No. 200640 of 2024 of the P.C Act, the same is a matter of fact and it has to be decided through proper trial. 20. In this context, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BEREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. ASHOK KUMAR ASWAL22 held that, “15. All the above apart, time and again, this Court has laid down the validity of a sanction order, if one exists, has to be tested on the touchstone of the prejudice to the accused which is essentially a question of fact and therefore, should be left to be determined in the course of the trial and not in the exercise of jurisdiction either under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in a proceeding under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.” (emphasis supplied) 21. As regards the preliminary enquiry is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF 22 (2015) 16 SCC 163 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4234 WP No. 200640 of 2024 KARNATAKA v. CHANNAKESHAVA H.D AND ANOTHER23, held in paragraphs No.12 and 13, which read thus: “12. To sum up, this Court has held that in matters of corruption a preliminary enquiry although desirable, but is not mandatory. In a case where a superior officer, based on a detailed source report disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence, passes an order for registration of FIR, the requirement of preliminary enquiry can be relaxed. 15. In view of the above, it is clear that preliminary enquiry was not mandated in the present case, considering that detailed information was already there before the SP in the form of the source report referred above. We have also gone through the order passed by the SP, directing registration of FIR against respondent no. 1, which reflects that the SP had passed that order on the basis of material placed before him in the form of the source report.” 22. On careful reading of the precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relating to preliminary enquiry and sanction, it is held that a preliminary enquiry can be 23 2025 SCC Online SC 753 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4234 WP No. 200640 of 2024 dispensed with, if, the FIR is based on a detailed source report submitted to the Superintendent of Police. 23. As regards the check period is concerned, whether it is valid or not has to be decided in the trial. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained in respect of quashing the proceedings. Hence, the petition is deserved to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE UN List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1