- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2986 CRL.P No. 103382 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. 103382 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: B MARUTHI S/O. B. LINGAPPA AGED 43 YEARS, DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, ANEGUNDI BRANCH, REGIONAL FOREST RANGE, GANGAVATI, KOPPAL, R/O. 17TH WARD, NEAR NATARAJKALAMANDIRA, KAMPLI, BELLARY-583101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHANKAR P.HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA BELLARY, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANTOSH B.MALAGOUDAR, SPP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION BY QUASHING THE FIR IN KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA P.S. BALLARY CRIME NO.08/2023 DATED 02.12.2023 (VIDE ANNEXURE A) REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 13(1)(b) R/W SECTION 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 AND FURTHER CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING FILE ON PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT 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 13:15:49 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2986 CRL.P No. 103382 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner challenges the registration of the 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 Deputy Range Forest Officer, possesses assets disproportionate to his known source of income to the extent of 104.43%. 3. The petitioner primarily challenges the proceedings on the ground that the order passed under the second proviso to Section 17(c) of the PC Act lacks application of mind, as no reasons have been assigned for authorizing the Police Inspector to investigate the offence. Additionally, the petitioner contends that no preliminary enquiry was conducted before the registration of the FIR. 4. A perusal of the order passed under the second proviso to Section 17(c) of the PC Act reveals that, apart from stating that the petitioner possesses assets disproportionate to his known source of income to the extent of 104.43%, there is no reference to: • The check period, • The income of the accused during the check period, • The assets possessed by the accused and his family members during the check period, and • The assets held prior to joining service. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2986 CRL.P No. 103382 of 2024 5. The learned counsel for the respondent/Lokayukta, in the statement of objections, has strongly opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner has not raised any specific ground regarding Section 17 of the PC Act. Even otherwise, the Superintendent of Police has applied his mind and passed the order authorizing the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.) to investigate the matter. • It is argued that the authorization order is administrative in nature and does not require a detailed explanation. • The petitioner has no locus standi to challenge an administrative order or to choose the investigating officer for the case. • The Superintendent of Police’s authorization is not necessary, as the Dy.S.P. is already empowered to investigate the matter. • It is further 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 PC Act. • The check period is not required to be mentioned in the FIR, as the FIR is not an encyclopedia; such details can be included in the charge sheet. • The check period falls within the petitioner’s service period, and the investigating officer will collect the relevant details during the investigation. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2986 CRL.P No. 103382 of 2024 • The petitioner was found in possession of assets exceeding his known sources of income. 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, wherein it was ruled as follows: 17. Upon a perusal of the order passed by the Superintendent of Police on 30.05.2023, it is evident that there is no mention of any preliminary enquiry conducted prior to 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 passing the order under Section 17 of the P.C. Act is not acceptable. Even in the said order dated 30.05.2023, the Superintendent of Police merely states that he received the source report, applied his mind, and was satisfied that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner, leading to the registration of the FIR. However, the order does not demonstrate proper application of mind. Had the Superintendent of Police indeed verified the source report, he would have at least mentioned: • The income of the petitioner, • The check period, • The assets and liabilities declared by the petitioner prior to joining service, and • The assets accumulated during his service. A mere assertion that he has applied his mind is insufficient to establish that due diligence was exercised. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2986 CRL.P No. 103382 of 2024 18. Furthermore, the police should have first registered the FIR, sent the source report along with the FIR, and only thereafter, the authorization under Section 17 of the P.C. Act should have been issued by the Superintendent of Police. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner rightly pointed out that, on a plain reading of proviso (ii) to Section 17 of the P.C. Act, the Superintendent of Police is empowered to authorize an investigation. However, an investigation always commences under Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. only after the FIR is registered under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C.. Therefore, the police were required to register the FIR first and then seek authorization for the investigation. In this regard, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in Udaya Ravi v. The State of Karnataka, S.P. ACB / Now S.P. Lokayukta and Another, W.P. No. 104906/2023 (GM-RES), decided on 20.12.2023, took a similar view. The Bench relied upon the judgment in Balakrishna H.N. v. State of Karnataka by ACB Mysuru, W.P. No. 15886/2022, decided on 03.01.2023, and quashed the FIR. Similarly, in T.N. Sudhakar Reddy v. State of Karnataka, Lokayukta, Crl.P. No. 13460/2023, decided on 04.03.2024, this Court followed the same precedent and quashed the FIR. 7. The contention raised by the respondent/Lokayukta was duly considered by the co-ordinate Bench in the aforementioned decisions. The judgment in Crl.P. No. 1019/2024 was subsequently challenged by the respondent/Lokayukta before the Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 16113/2024. However, by an order dated 22.01.2025, the Supreme Court dismissed the said SLP, while keeping open the question of law. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2986 CRL.P No. 103382 of 2024 8. In the present case, the order passed under the second proviso to Section 17(c) of the P.C. Act is not a speaking order, as it does not assign any reasons for granting authorization to the police to investigate the offence. Furthermore, the FIR was registered without conducting a preliminary enquiry, which has been held to be mandatory by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforementioned decision. 9. In light of the above, the continuation of the investigation against the petitioner would not serve the interest of justice. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and the impugned FIR in Crime No. 08/2023, registered by the respondent/Lokayukta (formerly ACB), Ballary, is hereby quashed. However, 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 of as they no longer survive for consideration. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC Ct:vh List No.: 3 Sl No.: 26