- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2983 CRL.P No. 102752 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102752 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: K MANJUNATH D/O. K. BASANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, REVENUE INSPECTOR, BELLARY, R/O. PLOT NO. 3, WARD NO. 5, HONNALLI MAIN, GUGGARA HATTI, BELLARY-583101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHANKAR P.HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA BELLARY, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANTOSH B.MALAGOUDAR, SPP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION BY QUASHING THE FIR IN KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA PS BELLARY CRIME NO. 06/2023 DATED 27.10.2023 (VIDE ANNEXURE A) REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 13(1)(b) R/W SEC. 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 AND FURTHER CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING FILE ON PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE BELLARY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.19 13:15:44 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2983 CRL.P No. 102752 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner challenges the registration of an FIR for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). 2. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, who is working as a Revenue Inspector, possesses assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of 96.74%. 3. The petitioner primarily challenges the proceedings on the following grounds: • The order passed under the 2nd proviso to Section 17(c) of the PC Act was issued without application of mind, as it does not provide any reasons for authorizing the Police Inspector to investigate the offences. • No preliminary enquiry was conducted before the registration of the FIR, which is a procedural requirement. 4. A perusal of the order passed under the 2nd proviso to Section 17(c) of the PC Act indicates that, apart from stating that the petitioner possesses assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of 96.74%, it does not specify: • The check period for assessing disproportionate assets, • The income of the accused during the check period, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2983 CRL.P No. 102752 of 2024 • The assets possessed by the accused and his family members during the check period, and • The assets declared by the accused prior to joining government service. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent/Lokayukta, while filing a statement of objections, has strongly opposed the petition and contended that: • The petitioner has not raised any challenge concerning Section 17 of the PC Act. • The Superintendent of Police applied his mind before passing the order authorizing the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.) to investigate the matter. • The order in question is administrative in nature and does not require a detailed explanation. • The petitioner has no locus standi to challenge an administrative order and cannot choose the investigating officer for the case. • Since the Dy.S.P. is the designated authority to investigate the matter, no separate authorization from the Superintendent of Police was necessary. • The Superintendent of Police, upon receiving the source report, conducted a preliminary enquiry to verify its genuineness before issuing the order under Section 17 of the PC Act. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2983 CRL.P No. 102752 of 2024 • The check period need not be mentioned in the FIR, as it is not an encyclopedia; it can be detailed in the charge sheet. • Since the check period falls within the petitioner’s tenure of service, the investigating officer will collect relevant details during the investigation. • The petitioner possesses assets exceeding his known sources of income, warranting an investigation. 6. The issue involved in this petition was examined by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P. No. 1019/2024, which was disposed of on 25.04.2024. The relevant portion of the ruling is as follows: 17. A perusal of the order passed by the Superintendent of Police on 30.05.2023 does not indicate that any preliminary enquiry was conducted before passing the order. The order contains no reference to such an enquiry. Therefore, the contention of the learned Special Counsel for the respondent that a preliminary enquiry was conducted before granting authorization under Section 17 of the PC Act is not acceptable. Even upon examining the order dated 30.05.2023, it merely states that the Superintendent of Police received the source report, applied his mind, and was satisfied that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner. Consequently, the order for registering the FIR was passed. However, the order clearly does not reflect any application of mind. If the Superintendent of Police had indeed verified the source report, he should have mentioned details such as: • The income of the petitioner during the check period, • The assets and liabilities declared by the petitioner prior to joining service, and • The assets possessed during his service. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2983 CRL.P No. 102752 of 2024 A mere statement that the Superintendent of Police applied his mind is insufficient to conclude that he actually did so. 18. Additionally, the police ought to have registered the FIR first, forwarded the source report along with it, and then obtained authorization under Section 17 of the PC Act from the Superintendent of Police. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed out that, under the second proviso to Section 17 of the PC Act, the Superintendent of Police is empowered to grant authorization for investigation. As per the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), an investigation commences under Section 157 only after an FIR is registered under Section 154. Therefore, the correct procedure requires the FIR to be registered first, followed by authorization for investigation. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Udaya Ravi v. State of Karnataka, S.P. ACB/Now S.P. Lokayukta & Another (W.P. No. 104906/2023 (GM-RES), dated 20.12.2023) has taken a similar view. This ruling relied on the judgment of another Co-ordinate Bench in Balakrishna H.N. v. State of Karnataka by ACB Mysuru (W.P. No. 15886/2022, dated 03.01.2023), which quashed the FIR. Likewise, in T.N. Sudhakar Reddy v. State of Karnataka, Lokayukta (Crl.P. No. 13460/2023, dated 04.03.2024), this Court considered the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench and quashed the FIR. 7. The contention raised by the respondent/Lokayukta was considered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision. The decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.1019/2024 was challenged by the respondent/Lokayukta before the Apex Court in SLP(Crl.) No.16113/2024 and vide order dated 22.01.2025 dismissed the said SLP, keeping open the question of law. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2983 CRL.P No. 102752 of 2024 8. In the instant case, the order passed under 2nd proviso to Section 17(c) of the PC Act is not a speaking order, since no reasons are assigned for grant of authorization to the police to investigate the offence. The FIR was registered without conducting preliminary enquiry, which was held to be mandatory as held by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision. 9. In the light of above, continuation of investigation against the petitioner would not sub-serve the interest of justice. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR in Crime No.06/2022, registered by the respondent/Lokayukta (then ACB), Ballary, is hereby quashed. Liberty is reserved to the respondent/Lokayukta to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law. 10. All pending applications, if any, are disposed off as not surviving for consideration. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC CT:VH List No.: 3 Sl No.: 24