- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2968 WP No. 105625 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 WRIT PETITION NO. 105625 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SHIVANAND S/O. KASHINATH MANAKAR AGAE. 42 YEARS, OCC. POLICE CONSTABLE, R/O. VANASHREE NAGAR SATTUR, DHARWAD-580007. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS POLICE INSPECTOR, DHARWAD-580001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND READ WITH SECTION 482 OF Cr.P.C., ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.7/2023 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 13 (1) (B) R/W 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 REGISTERED BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION, DHARWAD WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF SPECIAL COURT AND III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL COURT, DHARWAD INSOFAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.19 13:15:57 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2968 WP No. 105625 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The statement of objections filed by the respondent– Lokayukta is placed on record. 2. The petitioner challenges the registration of the FIR for offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. The FIR was registered on the allegation that the petitioner, who is serving as a Police Constable, possesses assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of 99.53% for the check period from 2008 to 16.08.2023. 4. The petitioner challenges the registration of the FIR primarily on the following grounds: a) The order passed under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the Superintendent of Police is cyclostyled and mechanical in nature, without any indication of application of mind. The FIR was registered by the respondent only after the passing of this order under Section 17 of the PC Act. b) No preliminary enquiry was conducted by the respondents before drawing the source report or registering the impugned FIR. Furthermore, the Superintendent of Police did not conduct any verification of the source report filed by Respondent No.2. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2968 WP No. 105625 of 2024 c) The Circular dated 11.05.2023, issued by the Director General of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, bars a Source Information Generating Officer from acting as the Investigating Officer. However, in the present case, Sri Suresh Reddy, Dy.S.P., who verified the alleged source report, has been appointed as the Investigating Officer, in violation of this circular. d) The check period considered by the respondents extends for 30 years, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent–Lokayukta, while filing the statement of objections, has strongly opposed the petition and contended that the petitioner has not raised any ground regarding Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Even otherwise, the Superintendent of Police has applied his mind and passed the order authorizing the Dy.S.P. to investigate the matter. The order is administrative in nature and does not require a detailed explanation. 6. The respondents further argue that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge an administrative order and has no right to choose the Investigating Officer. The Superintendent of Police’s order is not necessary, as the Dy.S.P. is already empowered to conduct the investigation. 7. Additionally, it is contended that the Superintendent of Police, after receiving the source report, conducted a preliminary enquiry into its genuineness before passing the order under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2968 WP No. 105625 of 2024 8. The respondents also argue that the check period is not required to be mentioned in the FIR, as the FIR is not an encyclopedia, and these details can be incorporated at the charge sheet stage. The check period falls within the petitioner’s service tenure, and hence, the Investigating Officer is expected to gather the necessary details during the investigation. 9. Lastly, the respondents contend that there is prima facie evidence of the petitioner possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. 10. The issue involved in this petition was examined by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.1019/2024, disposed off on 25.04.2024, wherein it is ruled as follows: 17. That apart, on very perusal of the order of the Superintendent of Police said to be passed on 30.05.2023, the Superintendent of Police has not mentioned that he has conducted any preliminary enquiry while passing the order. There is no reference available in the said order of the Superintendent of Police. Therefore, the contention of the learned Special Counsel for the respondent that the Superintendent of Police has conducted preliminary enquiry and then passed the order under Section 17 of the P.C. Act, cannot be acceptable. Even on perusal of the said order dated 30.05.2023, the Superintendent of Police has just mentioned that he has received the source report and he has applied his mind and satisfied that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner accused and hence, he has passed the order for registering the FIR. Therefore, the said order clearly reveals that he has not applied his mind while passing the order. If at all the Superintendent of Police has verified the source report, he could have at least mentioned as to what was the income of the petitioner, what was the check period, what was the assets and liabilities declared by the petitioner prior to joining service and what was the assets during his service. Merely mentioning that he has applied his mind is not enough to say that the Superintendent of Police has applied his mind. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2968 WP No. 105625 of 2024 18. That apart, the police could have registered the FIR and sent the source report along with FIR and then the authorisation under Section 17 of the P.C. Act should have been passed by the Superintendent of Police. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice that on plain reading of the proviso (ii) to Section 17 of the P.C. Act, it empowers the Superintendent of Police to authorise for investigation. The investigation always starts under Section 157 of Cr.P.C. after registering the FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has rightly contended that the police is required to register the FIR, and, then the Superintendent of Police shall authorise for investigation. In this regard, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of UDAYA RAVI Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, S.PACB/NOW S.P. LOKAYUKTHA AND ANOTHER, in Writ Petition No.104906/2023 (GM-RES) dated 20.12.2023 has taken the similar view by relying upon the judgment of another Co-ordinate Bench in the case of BALAKRISHNA H.N. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ACB MYSURU, in Writ Petition No.15886/2022 dated 03.01.2023 and quashed the FIR. In another case, in T.N. SUDHAKAR REDDY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, LOKAYUKTHA, (Criminal Petition No.13460/2023 dated 04.03.2024), this Court has considered the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench and quashed the FIR. 11. The contentions raised by the respondent/Lokayukta were considered and rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforementioned case. The decision in Crl.P.No.1019/2024 was challenged by the respondent/Lokayukta before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.16113/2024, which was dismissed on 22.01.2025, while keeping open the question of law. 12. In light of the above, the continuation of the criminal investigation would not serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in Crime No.7/2023, registered by Respondent No.2 and pending before the learned - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2968 WP No. 105625 of 2024 Special Court and III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, vide Annexure-C, are hereby quashed. 13. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to initiate appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with the law. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM Ct:vh List No.: 3 Sl No.: 5