- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13165 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA T AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O TYAGARAJU C P, SECOND DIVISION ACCOUNT ASSISTANT, MANCHANAYAKANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT. R/AT KOONAGAL VILLAGE, KP DODDI POST, KAILANCHA HOBLI, RAMANAGAR- 562 159. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHIRANJEEVI K R, AND SRI. KRISHNA MOORTI.L.BHAT, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA LEARNED SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, REPRESENTED BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA MS BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SRI. DEVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O. ANJANAPPA, SHESHAGIRIHALLI COLONY, HEJJAL POST, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANGARA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 SRI. K.M. MURARI MOUNI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND INVESTIGATION IN CR.NO.07/2024, FOR OFFENCE P/U/S 13(1)(a) AND 13(2) OF P.C ACT, 1988, U/S 409,420,204 R/W 120(B) OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT RAMANAGARA. THIS PETITION IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON 22.04.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CAV ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks for quashing of the impugned FIR dated 19.11.2024 registered as Crime No.07/2024 against the petitioner- accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the P.C.Act”) and Sections 409, 420, 204 r/w Section 120-B of IPC and for other reliefs. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner who was working as Second Division Account Assistant (for short “SDAA”) of Manchanayakanahalli Gram Panchayat, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 Bidadi, on 03.05.2024, on which date, the 2nd respondent - de facto complainant filed complaint alleging misappropriation and embezzlement of funds of the panchayat by the Panchayath Development Officer (PDO) one Mr.Yatish (accused No.1) during the period 2022-23 and 2023-24. In pursuance of the said complaint, the Inspector General of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta called for a report from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, who submitted a report dated 06.05.2024 to the IGP seeking prior permission for further investigation under Section 17A of the P.C.Act not only as against accused No.1, Yatish but also against petitioner – accused No.2 and Vasumati – Bill collector (accused No.3) and Shashikumar – Bill Collector/Computer operator (accused No.4). In pursuance of the said report, the 1st respondent - Lokayukta sought permission from the competent authority empowered to grant approval under Section 17A of P.C Act, which was granted vide order dated 23.07.2024 against the petitioner as well as accused Nos.3 and 4. On 10.09.2024, prior/previous approval/permission under Section 17A was granted as against accused No.1 also. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 4. Subsequently, the Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta conducted preliminary enquiry and submitted a report dated 14.11.2024, pursuant to which, the IGP, directed the 1st respondent to register an FIR against all accused persons and to conduct further investigation. Accordingly, an FIR in Crime No.07/2024 was registered against all the accused persons including the petitioner – accused No.2, who is before this Court by way of the present petition. 5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed their separate statement of objections and contested the present petition and sought for its dismissal. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the material on record in order to point out that the petitioner was merely as SDAA, who had neither any access nor any role in tax collection or remittance on behalf of the panchayat, where he was working and in the absence of any material to either connect / link the petitioner with the allegations of misappropriation / embezzlement of panchayat funds, the order granting prior/previous approval/permission under Section 17A of the P.C Act as well as the impugned FIR deserve to be quashed. In - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 support of his submission he placed reliance upon the following judgments: (i) Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttara Pradesh and others - (2014) 2 SCC 1; (ii) Anees Vs. The State Government of NCT - 2024 INSC 368; (iii) Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and another - 2024 INSC 369; (iv) K.Shiva Kumar Vs. State by its Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai - Crl.O.P.No.16673/ 2024 dated 06.01.2025. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 would reiterate the various contentions urged in their statement of objections and submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed by placing reliance upon the following judgments: (i) P.Sirajuddin Vs. State of Madras - (1970) 1 SCC 595; (ii) Charansing Vs. State of Maharashtra - (2021) 5 SCC 469. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 9. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the 2nd respondent – de facto complainant filed a complaint dated 03.05.2024 alleging financial misconduct and misappropriation in the panchayat. In this context, it is relevant to state that in the entire complaint there is absolutely nothing whatsoever alleged against the petitioner herein nor is he named anywhere in the complaint, which is totally and completely directed only against Yatish (accused No.1), who was the PDO. According to the complainant, accused No.1 was guilty of short remittance of tax collected by him on behalf of the panchayat for the period 2022-23 and 2023-24 and requested the IGP, Lokayukta to initiate criminal proceedings against accused No.1. 10. Upon receipt of the complaint dated 03.05.2024 given by the 2nd respondent – de facto complainant, the IGP called for a preliminary report from the Dy.S.P., who submitted a report dated 06.05.2024 referring to the allegations made in the complaint and seeking prior/previous approval/ permission under Section 17A of the P.C Act to conduct investigation. The said report dated 06.05.2024 submitted by the Dy.S.P., to the IGP is as under: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ gÀºÀ¸Àå £ÀA.PÀ¯ÉÆÃ/PÉÃAzÀæ PÀbÉÃj/gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ/zÀÆgÀÄ Cfð/02/2024, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 06-06-2024 gÀªÀjUÉ, ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ. ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ, «µÀAiÀÄ: CfðzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æà zÉêÀgÁdÄ ©£ï DAf£À¥Àà, ±ÉõÀVjºÀ½î, ©qÀ¢ ºÉƧ½, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ f¯Éè gÀªÀgÀ zÀÆgÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ°è£À JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞzÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼À PÀÄjvÁV «ZÁgÀuÉ/vÀ¤SÉ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ ¥ÀƪÁð£ÀĪÀÄw zÉÆgÀQ¹PÉÆqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ. G¯ÉèÃR: 1. ²æÃ. zÉêÀgÁdÄ gÀªÀgÀ zÀÆgÀÄ Cfð ¢£ÁAPÀ: 03.05.2024 2. £ÀA. PÀ¯ÉÆÃ/PÉÃAzÀæ PÀbÉÃj/gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ/zÀÆgÀÄ Cfð/02/2024, ¢£ÁAPÀ:04.05.2024. ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃR-2gÀ eÁÕ¥À£ÀzÀ°è zÀÆgÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ PÀÄjvÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, CfðzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ. zÉêÀgÁdÄ ©£ï DAf£À¥Àà, ±ÉõÀVjºÀ½î, ©qÀ¢ ºÉÆç½, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ f¯Éè gÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ zÀÆgÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ. ¸ÀzÀj zÀÆgÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ ¸ÁgÁA±ÀªÉãÉAzÀgÉ; gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ©qÀ¢ ºÉÆç½ ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁj ²æà AiÀÄwñÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß zÀħð¼ÀPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ vÉjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ªÀÄÆ®UÀ½AzÀ ªÀ¸ÀÆ°AiÀiÁzÀ vÉjUÉAiÀÄ £ÀUÀzÀÄ gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀzÉà ºÀt zÀħð¼ÀPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ²æà AiÀÄwñÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁj ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É KPÀ PÁ®zÀ°è ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ zÁ½ zÁ½ ªÉÃ¼É C£ÀĪÀiÁ£À §A¢zÀÄÝ EzÀgÀ §UÉÎ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆÃj UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwUÉ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀÄ Cfð ¤Ãr UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ªÀiÁ»w C¢üPÁj ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwgÀªÀjAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 01-04-2023 jAzÀ 31-03-2024 gÀªÀgÀUÉ ¢£ÀªÀ» ªÀ¸ÀƯÁw jf¸ÀÖgï £ÀPÀ®Ä ºÁUÀÆ ¨ÁåAQ£À ¥Á¸ï ²Ãmï zÀÈrÃPÀj¹ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÁUÀ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀAvÉ vÉjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ªÀÄÆ®UÀ½AzÀ ªÀ¸ÀÆ°AiÀiÁzÀ vÉjUÉAiÀÄ £ÀUÀzÀÄ gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀzÉà ºÀt zÀħð¼ÀPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢zÀÄÝ PÀÆqÀ¯Éà vÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è£À J¯Áè zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ PÀÆqÀ¯Éà CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹ «ZÁgÀuÉUÉƼÀ¥Àr¸À¨ÉÃPÁV F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ vÀªÀÄä°è PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 01.04.2023 jAzÀ 31.03.2024 gÀªÀgÉUÉ ¢£ÀªÀ» ªÀ¸ÀƯÁw (qÉà ¥ÀĸÀÛPÀ) gÉV¸ÀÖgï MlÄÖ ªÀ¸ÀƯÁw ºÁUÀÆ ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ¥Á¸ï ²Ãmï F PɼÀPÀAqÀ ¥ÀnÖ: 1. 2022-23 £Éà ¸Á°£À ªÀiÁZÀÄð CAvÀåPÉÌ vÉjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ªÀÄÆ®UÀ½AzÀ ªÀ¸ÀÆ°AiÀiÁzÀ 2400000/- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 £ÀUÀzÀÄ ªÉÆvÀÛ ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀzÉ G½¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀ ªÉÆvÀÛ 2. ¢£ÁAPÀ 01-04-2023 jAzÀ 26-03-2024 gÀªÀgÉUÉ vÉjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ªÀÄÆ®UÀ½AzÀ ªÀ¸ÀÆ°AiÀiÁzÀ £ÀUÀzÀÄ ªÉÆvÀÛ ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæ ¥ÀA ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ªÀiÁ»w C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÁwAiÀÄAvÉ 23034259/- MlÄÖ 25434259/- 3. ¢£ÁAPÀ 01-04-2023 jAzÀ 26-03-2024 gÀªÀgÉUÉ vÉjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ªÀÄÆ®UÀ½AzÀ ªÀ¸ÀÆ°AiÀiÁzÀ £ÀUÀzÀÄ ªÉÆvÀÛ ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæ ¥ÀA ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ªÀiÁ»w C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÁwAiÀÄAvÉ 18037862/- 4. 01.04.2023 jAzÀ 26.03.2024 gÀªÀgÉUÉ vÉjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ªÀÄÆ®UÀ½AzÀ ªÀ¸ÀÆ°AiÀiÁzÀ £ÀUÀzÀÄ ªÉÆvÀÛ ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀzÉ G½¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀ ªÉÆvÀÛ ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæ ¥ÀA ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ªÀiÁ»w C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÁwAiÀÄAvÉ 18037862/- 1) F ªÉÄð£À ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀAvÉ 2022-23 £Éà ¸Á°£À 31-003-2023 PÉÌ CAzÁdÄ 2400000/- (E¥ÀàvÀÄÛ £Á®ÄÌ ®PÀë) gÀÆUÀ¼ÀÄ vÉjUÉ ªÀ¸ÀƯÁw ºÀt ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è F ªÉÆvÀÛ 01-04-2023 PÉÌ ¨ÁQ G½¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 2) 2023-24 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è 01-04-2023 jAzÀ 31-03-2024 PÉÌ vÉjUÉ ªÀ¸ÀƯÁw ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ªÀiÁ»w C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ qÉà ªÀĸÀÛPÀ (¢£ÀªÀ» ªÀ¸ÀƯÁw zÁR¯Áw ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ 23034259/- (JgÀqÀÄ PÉÆÃn ªÀÄƪÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀëzÀ ªÀÄƪÀvÀÄÛ £Á®ÄÌ ¸Á«gÀzÀ JgÀqÀÄ £ÀÆgÀÄ LªÀvÉÆÛA§vÀÄÛ) gÀÆUÀ¼ÀÄ vÉjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ªÀÄÆ®UÀ½AzÀ £ÀUÀzÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæ ¥ÀA ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ªÀiÁ»w C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ zÁR¯Áw¬ÄAzÀ w½zÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 3) 2022-23 £Éà ¸Á°£À ¨ÁQ 31-03-2023PÉÌ vÉjUÉ ªÀ¸ÀƯÁw ªÉÆvÀÛ ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀĪÀ ªÉÆvÀÛ 2400000/- (E¥ÀàvÀÄÛ £Á®ÄÌ ®PÀë) + 2023-24 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è 01-04-2023 jAzÀ 31-03-2024 PÉÌ vÉjUÉ ªÀ¸ÀƯÁw ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ªÀiÁ»w C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ zÁR¯Áw ¥ÀæPÁgÀ 23034259/- (JgÀqÀÄ PÉÆÃn ªÀÄƪÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀëzÀ ªÀÄƪÀvÀÄÛ £Á®ÄÌ ¸Á«gÀzÀ JgÀqÀÄ £ÀÆgÀÄ LªÀvÉÆÛA§vÀÄÛ) gÀÆUÀ¼ÀÄ JgÀqÀÄ ¸ÉÃj MlÄÖ 25434259/- gÀÆUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀ¸ÀƯÁzÀ £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀtªÀÇ ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæ ¥ÀA ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ªÀiÁ»w C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ zÁR¯Áw¬ÄAzÀ w½zÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ 4) ¢£ÁAPÀ 01-04-2023 jAzÀ 26-03-2023 gÀªÀgÉUÉ 18037862/- (MAzÀÄ PÉÆÃn JA¨sÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀë ªÀÄƪÀvÉÛüÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ JAlÄ£ÀÆgÀÄ CgÀªÀvÉÛÃgÀqÀÄ) gÀÆUÀ¼ÀÄ vÉjUÉ £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁUÀgÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ªÀiÁ»w C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ¨ÁåAQ£À ¥Á±ï ²Ãmï zÁR¯É¬ÄAzÀ JAzÀÄ w½zÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 5) 2023-24 £Éà ¸Á°£À 01.03.2023 jAzÀ 26.03.2024 ªÀ¸ÀƯÁw ªÉÆvÀÛ ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀzÉ ¨ÁQ G½¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ 7396397/- (J¥ÀàvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ®PÀëzÀ vÉÆA¨sÀvÁÛgÀÄ/ ¸Á«gÀzÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ£ÀÆgÀÄ vÉÆA¨sÀvÉÛüÀÄ) gÀÆUÀ¼À vÉjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÀ ªÀÄÆ®UÀ½AzÀ ªÀ¸ÀƯÁzÀ £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀt ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀzÉà PÀvÀðªÀå ¯ÉÆÃ¥À J¸ÀV ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀÄ vÉjUÉ gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwUÉ ¥ÁªÀw¹gÀĪÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ C¢üPÁgÀ zÀħð¼ÀPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀ ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁj «gÀÄzÀÞ QæëģÀ¯ï Pɸï zÁR°¹ PÀÆqÀ¯Éà CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛ ¥Àr¹ «ZÁgÀuÉ £ÀqɸÀ¨ÉÃPÁV JAzÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ zÀÆgÀÄ CfðAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. zÀÆgÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼À §UÉÎ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV: C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÁzÀ 1) ²æÃ. AiÀÄwñï, ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁj, ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ f¯Éè, 2) ²æÃ. ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ n. ¢éwÃAiÀÄ zÀeÉð ¯ÉPÀÌ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ, ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ f¯Éè, 3) ²æêÀÄw ªÀ¸ÀĪÀÄw. J¸ï. ©¯ï PÀ¯ÉPÀÖgï, ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ f¯Éè ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4) ²æÃ. ±À²PÀĪÀiÁgï. ºÉZï. ©¯ï PÀ¯ÉPÀÖgï, ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ. gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ f¯Éè EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è vÉjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ªÀÄÆ®UÀ½AzÀ ªÀ¸ÀƯÁzÀ £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀt ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀzÉà PÀvÀðªÀå ¯ÉÆÃ¥À J¸ÀV ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀÄ vÉjUÉ gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwUÉ ¥ÁªÀw¹gÀĪÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ C¢üPÁgÀ zÀħð¼ÀPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÉÄïÉÆßÃlPÉÌ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀĪÀ »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è zÀÆgÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ ºÉaÑ£À «ZÁgÀuÉ CªÀ±ÀåPÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ zÀÆgÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ°è£À JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞzÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼À PÀÄjvÁV «ZÁgÀuÉ/vÀ¤SÉ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®AiÀÄ ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥ÀgÁ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¥Àæw§AzsÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1988gÀ (wzÀÄÝ¥Àr PÁAiÉÄÝ-2018) PÀ®A 17(J) CrAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ ¥ÀǪÁð£ÀĪÀÄw zÉÆgÀQ¹PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀiÁ£ÀågÀ°è PÉÆÃjzÉ EzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ zÀÆgÀÄ CfðAiÉÆA¢UÉ MzÀV¸À¯ÁVgÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ. ªÀAzÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ. vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹. ¸À»/- (ªÀÄ°èPÁdÄð£À ¹.J¸ï) ¥Éǰøï G¥Á¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ-17, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ. C£ÀħAzsÀ II ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¥Àæw§AzsÀPÀ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ, 1988 (wzÀÄÝ¥Àr PÁAiÉÄÝ-2018gÀ PÀ®A:17J ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ «µÀAiÀÄUÀ½UÁV ¨Á§ÄÛUÀ¼À vÀ¥À²Ã®Ä ¥ÀnÖ. PÀæ ¸ÀA ²Ã¶ðPÉ ºËzÀÄ/E®è ¥sÉÆîØgï ¸ÀASÉå/¥ÀÄl ¸ÀASÉå 1. ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¥Àæw§AzsÀ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ, 1988gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è C¥ÀgÁzsÀzÀ DgÉÆÃ¥À ªÀiÁqÀ ¯ÁVgÀĪÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ £ËPÀgÀ£À ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ, ¥ÀzÀ£ÁªÀÄ CxÀªÁ PÀbÉÃj. ªÀåQÛAiÀÄÄ, ºËzÀÄ 1) ²æÃ. ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ n. ¢éwÃAiÀÄ zÀeÉð ¯ÉPÀÌ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ, ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ £ËPÀgÀ£À ¸ÁÜ£À¢AzÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁ¦Û UÉÆArzÀÝ°è CAvÀºÀ ªÀåQÛAiÀÄÄ ¤UÀð«ÄvÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ºÉÆA¢zÀÝ ¸ÁÜ£À CxÀªÁ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀÆa¸À¨ÉÃPÁVzÉ. vÁ®ÆPÀÄ, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀg f¯Éè,À 2) ²æêÀÄw ªÀ¸ÀĪÀÄw J¸ï. ©¯ï PÀ¯ÉPÀÖgï, ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ f¯Éè ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3) ²æÃ. ±À²PÀĪÀiÁgï ºÉZï. ©¯ï PÀ¯ÉPÀÖgï, ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ f¯Éè 2. ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¥Àæw§AzsÀ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄzÀ CrAiÀÄ°è DgÉÆÃ¥À ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVgÀĪÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß J¸ÀUÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è CAvÀºÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ £ËPÀgÀ£ÀÄ ºÉÆA¢zÀÝ ¸ÁÜ£À CxÀªÁ ºÀÄzÉÝ. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ £ËPÀgÀ£ÀÄ ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ CxÀªÁ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÉÆßzÀV¸À®Ä PÉÆÃjzÉ. ºËzÀÄ 1) ²æà ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ n. ¢éwÃAiÀÄ zÀeÉð ¯ÉPÀÌ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ, ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ f¯Éè 2) ²æêÀÄw. ªÀ¸ÀĪÀÄw J¸ï. ©¯ï PÀ¯ÉPÀÖgï. ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ f¯Éè ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3) ²æÃ. ±À²PÀĪÀiÁgï. ºÉZï, ©¯ï PÀ¯ÉPÀÖgï. ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ f¯Éè ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ: ªÀÄÄRå PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀðºÀuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, f¯Áè ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ f¯Éè 3. (i) ¹éÃPÀj¸À¯ÁzÀ zÀÆj£À DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ PÉÆÃjPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉAiÉÄÃ? CzÀgÀ MAzÀÄ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¸À®Ä PÉÆÃjzÉ. (ii) ºËzÀÄ JAzÁzÀgÉ, ªÀÄÆ® zÀÆgÀÄ ¥ÁæAwÃAiÀÄ ¨sÁµÉAiÀÄ°èzÁÝUÀ CzÀgÀ C¢üPÀÈvÀ ¨sÁµÁAvÀgÀªÀ£ÀÄß zÀAiÀÄ«lÄÖ ®UÀwÛ¹. ºËzÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ Cfð ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ. 4. ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ £ËPÀgÀ£ÀÄ vÀ£Àß ¸ÀéAvÀPÁÌV CxÀªÁ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀåQÛUÁV C£ÀÄavÀ ¥ÀæAiÉÆÃd£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅzÁV zÀÆj£À°è ªÉÄïÉÆßÃlPÉÌ ¥ÀæPÀlªÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉAiÉÄÃ? zÀAiÀÄ«lÄÖ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MzÀV¹. ºËzÀÄ ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è vÉjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ªÀÄÆ®UÀ½AzÀ ªÀ¸ÀƯÁzÀ £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀt ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀzÉà PÀvÀðªÀå ¯ÉÆÃ¥À J¸ÀV ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀÄ vÉjUÉ gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwUÉ ¥ÁªÀw¹gÀĪÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ C¢üPÁgÀ zÀħð¼ÀPÉ - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÉÄïÉÆßÃlPÉÌ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 5. ®AZÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ªÀåQÛUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÁzÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ»w ®¨sÀå«zÉAiÉÄÃ? zÀAiÀÄ«lÄÖ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MzÀV¹. E¯Áè -- 6. ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ £ËPÀgÀ£ÁVgÀĪÀ CxÀªÁ £ËPÀgÀªÁVzÀÝ ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÞ D¥Á¢¹gÀĪÀ ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¥Àæw§AzsÀ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ, 1988gÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀUÀ¼À ¤¢ðµÀÖ PÀ®AUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹. £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÉ ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¥Àæw§AzsÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ PÀ®A 13(1)(J). 7.. ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ £ËPÀgÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÞ D¥Á¢£À ¯ÁVgÀĪÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀ£ÀÄ ²¥sÁgÀ¸ÀÄì CxÀªÁ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ ¤zsÁðgÀzÀ ¤¢üðµÀÖ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÀAiÀÄ«lÄÖ - ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è vÉjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ªÀÄÆ®UÀ½AzÀ ªÀ¸ÀƯÁzÀ £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀt ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀzÉà PÀvÀðªÀå ¯ÉÆÃ¥À J¸ÀV ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀÄ vÉjUÉ gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwUÉ ¥ÁªÀw¹gÀĪÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ C¢üPÁgÀ zÀħð¼ÀPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÉÄïÉÆßÃlPÉÌ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 8. F ªÀÄÄAa£À ºÀAvÀzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀǪÀð¨sÁ« «ZÁgÀuÉ/ C£ÉéõÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉÆArzÀÝgÉ CzÀgÀ ¤tðAiÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÀAiÀÄ«lÄÖ ®UÀwÛ¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CAxÀºÀ ¥ÀǪÀð¨sÁ« «ZÁgÀuÉ CxÀªÁ ¥ÁægÀA©PÀ «ZÁgÀuÉ CxÀªÁ C£ÉéõÀuÉUÁV ¥ÀǪÁð£ÀÄ ªÉÆÃzÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVvÉÛà JA§ §UÉÎ ¸ÀºÀ ¹ÜjÃPÀj¸À§ºÀÄzÀÄ(¸ÀàµÀÖ¥Àr¸À§ºÀÄzÀÄ) E¯Áè -- 9. ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ £ËPÀgÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÞ ¨sÁgÀvÀ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ CrAiÀÄ°è£À AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà Qæ«Ä£À¯ï C¥ÀgÁzsÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CxÀªÁ EvÀgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÁ£ÀƤ£À CrAiÀÄ°è£À C¥ÀgÁzsÀ UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ C¥Á¢¸À¯ÁVzÉAiÉÄÃ? ºÁVzÀÝ®è CzÀgÀ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MzÀV¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. E¯Áè PÀqÀvÀzÀ°è£À zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À ¥Àj²Ã®£É¬ÄAzÀ ºÁUÀÆ PÀÄ®APÀĵÀ «ZÁgÀuÉ/vÀ¤SÉ ¬ÄAzÀ RavÀ¥Àr¹ PÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 10. ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã®£ÉUÁV AiÀÄÄPÀÛªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¯ÁzÀ EvÀgÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀiÁ»w. E¯Áè -- 11. AiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ CxÀªÁ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¹éÃPÀj¸ÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ ¤AiÉÆÃf vÀ£ÁzÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¹ zÀAvÉ, AiÀÄÄPÀÛ ±ÉæÃtÂAiÀÄ ¥Éǰøï C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ ¥ÀǪÁð£ÀÄ ªÉÆÃzÀ£É PÉÆÃgÀĪÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è£À PÉÆgÀvÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀÆ£ÀåvÉ UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Àj¥Àr¸À®Ä C¢üPÀÈvÀUÉƽ¹zÀ ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ, ²æÃ. ªÀÄ°èPÁdÄð£À ¹.J¸ï. ¥Éǰøï G¥Á¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ-17, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 ºÀÄzÉÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀ𠫪ÀgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 06.05.2024. (²æÃ. ªÀÄ°èPÁdÄð£À ¹.J¸ï.) ¥Éǰøï G¥Á¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ-17, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, 11. A perusal of the aforesaid report will indicate that despite referring to the complaint, which was completely and totally directed only as against accused No.1 (PDO) and absolutely no allegations were made against petitioner – accused No.2 by the de facto complainant, the Dy.S.P., proceeds to request prior/previous approval/permission to conduct investigation as against the petitioner also without there being any basis or any material, either in the complaint or otherwise, which would enable investigation to be conducted as against the petitioner also. In fact, all that the Dy.S.P., states that the petitioner and other bill collectors viz., accused Nos.3 and 4 were guilty of the alleged offences without specifying or detailing any reasons as to why he seeks prior/previous approval/permission to conduct investigation as against petitioner – accused No.2 also. Under these circumstances, the said report which forms the very basis/genesis for registration of the impugned FIR being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the material on record, the said report dated 06.05.2024 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 submitted by the Dy.S.P., to the IGP is vitiated and the said report as well as all further proceedings pursuant thereto including the impugned FIR deserve to be quashed. 12. As stated supra, in pursuance of the aforesaid report submitted by Dy.S.P., the IGP requested the Zilla Panchayath for previous/prior approval/permission to conduct an enquiry/inquiry/investigation against the petitioner and other accused persons. Upon receipt of the said request, the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayath issued notice dated 01.07.2024 to the petitioner who submitted his reply dated 16.07.2024 explaining that he had absolutely no role or involvement whatsoever either in collection of tax, issuance of receipts or remittance of tax and consequently, the question of granting permission for investigation against him under Section 17A of P.C Act would not arise. Thereafter, the CEO of the Zilla Panchayat proceeded and passed an order dated 23.07.2024 granting prior/previous permission/ approval for conducting investigation against the petitioner under Section 17A of P.C Act. The said approval/permission dated 23.07.2024 is as under: - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 ªÀÄÄRå PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À PÀbÉÃj, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï ¨sÀªÀ£À, ©JA.gÀ¸ÉÛ, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ-562159 ¸ÀA:gÁf¥ÀA/¹5/¯ÉÆÃ.PÀ.zÀÆ/¹Dgï-18/2024-25/1645 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 23/07/2024 gÀªÀjUÉ, ªÀiÁ£Àå ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ, §ºÀĪÀĺÀrUÀ¼À PÀlÖqÀ, qÁ.©.Dgï.CA¨ÉÃqÀÌgï «¢, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ- 560001. ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ, «µÀAiÀÄ:- ²æà zÉêÀgÁdÄ, ±ÉõÀVjºÀ½î, ©qÀ¢ ºÉÆç½, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄgÀªÀgÀ zÀÆgÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ°è ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ zÀÆjUÉÀ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼À PÀÄjvÁV «ZÁgÀuÉ/vÀ¤SÉ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä ¥ÀǪÁð£ÀĪÀÄw ¤ÃqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ. G¯ÉèÃR:-1. ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ, JA.J¸ï.©°ØAUï, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄgÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: PÀ¯ÉÆà / PÉÃ.PÀbÉÃj / gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ/zÀÆgÀÄCfð / 02/2024 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 10/05/2024. 2. PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄgÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj ªÀgÀ¢ ¥ÀvÀ ¸ÀASÉå:PÁ¤C/vÁ¥ÀAgÁ/¹-3/¹Dgï-5141/2024-25 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 03.07.2024. 3. PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É ¸ÀASÉå:UÁæC¥À/886/UÁæ¥ÀAPÁ/2016 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 29/09/2020. ***** ²æà zÉêÀgÁdÄ ©£ï DAd£À¥Àà, ±ÉõÀVjºÀ½î, ©qÀ¢ ºÉÆç½, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ & f¯Éè gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀ°è zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj zÀÆgÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ°è gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ©qÀ¢ ºÉÆç½, ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwAiÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁjAiÀiÁzÀ ²æà AiÀÄwñÀgÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß zÀħð¼ÀPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ vÉjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ªÀÄÆ®UÀ½AzÀ ªÀ¸ÀÆ°AiÀiÁzÀ £ÀUÀzÀÄ gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀzÉà ºÀt zÀħð¼ÀPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ²æà AiÀÄwñï, ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁj ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É KPÀ PÁ®zÀ°è ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ zÁ½ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ C£ÀĪÀiÁ£À §A¢zÀÄÝ EzÀgÀ §UÉÎ zÁR¨ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆÃj UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwUÉ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀÄ Cfð ¤r UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwAiÀÄ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ªÀiÁ»w ºÀPÀÄÌ C¢üPÁj, ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw CªÀjAzÀ, ¢:01-01-2023 jAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:31- 03-2024 gÀªÀgÉV£À ¢£ÀªÀ» ªÀ¸ÀƯÁw jf¸ÀÖgï£À £ÀPÀ®Ä ºÁUÀÆ ¨ÁåAQ£À ¥Á¸ï - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 ²Ãmï zÀÈrÃPÀj¹zÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÁUÀ £ÀUÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwAiÀÄ°è vÉjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ªÀÄÆ®UÀ½AzÀ ªÀ¸ÀÆ°AiÀiÁzÀ £ÀUÀzÀÄ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAPï SÁvÉUÉ dªÀiÁ ªÀiÁqÀzÉà ºÀt zÀħð¼ÀPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ vÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwAiÀÄ J¯Áè zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ vÀ¦àvÀ¸ÀÜ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀÆqÀ¯Éà CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛUÉƽ¹ «ZÁgÀuÉUÉƼÀ¥Àr¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄä zÀÆj£À°è PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. zÀÆjUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ G¯ÉèÃR(1) gÀ°è 1) ²æà ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ n. ¢éwÃAiÀÄ zÀeÉð ¯ÉPÀÌ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ, ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ f¯Éè, 2) ²æêÀÄw ªÀ¸ÀĪÀÄw J¸ï. ©¯ï PÀ¯ÉPÀÖgï, ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ. gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ f¯Éè ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3) ²æà ±À²PÀĪÀiÁgï ºÉZï. ©¯ï PÀ¯ÉPÀÖgï, ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ f¯Éè EªÀgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß zÀħð¼ÀPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ vÉjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ªÀÄÆ®UÀ½AzÀ ªÀ¸ÀÆ°AiÀiÁzÀ £ÀUÀzÀÄ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAPï SÁvÉUÉ dªÀiÁ ªÀiÁqÀzÉà ºÀt zÀħð¼ÀPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀzÀ §UÉÎ, ¸ÀA¥ÀÇtðªÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¹, zÀÆj£À°ègÀĪÀ C¥ÁzÀ£ÉUÀ¼À §UÉ, vÀ¤SÉ/«ZÁgÀuÉ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä PÀ®A 17(J) ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¥Àæw§AzsÀPÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ- 1988 gÀ jÃvÁå ¥ÀǪÁð£ÀĪÀÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ¸ÀA§AzsÀ D¥ÁzÀ£ÉUÀ¼À PÀÄjvÀÄ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ vÀ¤SÉ/«ZÁgÀuÉ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä PÀ®A 17(J) ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¥Àæw§AzsÀPÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ-1988 gÀ jÃvÁå ¥ÀǪÁð£ÀĪÀÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀĪÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀàµÀÖ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÉÆA¢UÉ PÀÆqÀ¯Éà ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ f¯Áè ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvïUÉ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀAvÉ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ EªÀjUÉ ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. G¯ÉèÃR(2) gÀ°è PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄgÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄÄ F ªÀÄÄA¢£ÀAvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ²æà zÉêÀgÁdÄ ©£ï CAd£À¥Àà, ±ÉõÀVjºÀ½î, ©qÀ¢ ºÉÆç½, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ f¯Áè ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw PÀbÉÃjUÀ½UÉ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹, ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwAiÀÄ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ: 01.04.2023 jAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:27.03.2024 gÀªÀgÉUÉ £ÀUÀzÀÄ gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è ¤ªÉñÀ£À, PÀlÖqÀ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ ªÀÄÆ®UÀ½AzÀ ªÀ¸ÀƯÁzÀ ªÉÆvÀÛ, ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ ªÉÆvÀÛ ºÁUÀÆ dªÉÄAiÀiÁUÀzÉ ¨ÁQ G½¢gÀĪÀ ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ «ªÀgÀªÀ£ÀÄß zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÉÆqÀ£É ¤ÃqÀ®Ä PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj zÀÆgÀÄUÀ¼À ¸ÀA§AzsÀ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwUÉ ¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ f¯Áè ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw PÀbÉÃjUÉ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¸À®Ä f¯Áè ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ, ¸ÀzÀj «µÀAiÀÄzÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwUÉ ¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ¥Àj²Ã®£É £Àqɹ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¸À®Ä ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¯ÉPÁÌ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ EªÀgÀ £ÉÃvÀÈvÀézÀ C¢üPÁj/£ËPÀgÀgÀ vÀAqÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤AiÉÆÃf¹zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj vÀAqÀªÀÅ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV F PɼÀPÀAqÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 1. 2022-23 £Éà ¸Á°£À ªÀiÁZïð CAvÀåPÉÌ vÉjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ªÀÄÆ®UÀ½AzÀ ªÀ¸ÀÆ°AiÀiÁzÀ ªÉÆvÀÛ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 31/03/2023 gÀ CAvÀåPÉÌ gÀÆ. 22,42,765/- UÀ¼ÀÄ ¨ÁQ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 2. 2023-24 £Éà ¸Á°£À ªÀiÁZïð CAvÀåPÉÌ vÉjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÀ ªÀÄÆ®UÀ½AzÀ gÀÆ. 2,34,259/- UÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀ¸ÀÆ°AiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 31/03/2024 gÀ CAvÀåPÉÌ gÀÆ. 1,95,72,728/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, gÀÆ. 57,04,296/- UÀ¼ÀÄ ¨ÁQ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 3. 2023-24 £Éà ¸Á°£À ¨ÁQ EgÀĪÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß K¦æÃ¯ï – 2024 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄà - 2024 gÀ ªÀiÁºÉUÀ¼À°è gÀÆ. 50,41,700/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ: 30/4/2024 gÀAzÀÄ gÀÆ. 8,50,000/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀgÀªÀ¸ÀÆ°UÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw ªÀ¸ÀĪÀÄw gÀªÀgÀ vÀAVAiÀiÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw ¨sÁ£ÀĪÀÄw gÀªÀgÀ SÁvɬÄAzÀ dªÉÄAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj £ÀUÀzÀÄ ªÀ¸ÀƯÁw ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ. 6,62,596/- UÀ¼ÀÄ ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÉÄAiÀiÁUÀzÉ ¨ÁQ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 4. 2023-24 £Éà ¸Á°£À ¢£ÀªÀ» ªÀ¸ÀÆ° ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀ (£ÀªÀÄÆ£À-7), ¢£ÀªÀ» £ÀUÀzÀÄ (£ÀªÀÄÆ£É-49) ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀðºÀuÉ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¯ÉPÁÌ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ¤AiÉÆÃUÀzÀ ¥Àj²Ã®£Á ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀĪÀ CA±ÀUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ °TvÀ ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è PÁgÀt PÉý £ÉÆÃnÃ¸ï ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄwAiÀÄ ¹§âA¢UÀ¼ÁzÀ ©¯ï PÀ¯ÉPÀÖgï ªÀiÁgÀAiÀÄå, ©¯ï PÀ¯ÉPÀÖgï ªÀ¸ÀĪÀÄw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀA¥ÀÇålgï D¥ÀgÉÃlgï ±À²PÀĪÀiÁgï gÀªÀjUÉ £ÉÆÃn¸ï eÁj ªÀiÁr vÉjUÉ ªÀ¸ÀƯÁw ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ PÀrªÉÄ EgÀ¸Á°UÉ CªÀPÁ±À«®èzÀAvÉ PÀqÁØAiÀĪÁV ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹gÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¹§âA¢UÀ½UÉ ¥ÀAZÀvÀAvÀæ 2.0 vÀAvÁæA±ÀzÀ°è D¹ÛUÀ¼À vÉjUÉ ¥ÀjµÀÌgÀuÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¦.r.N. ¯ÁV£ï £À°è vÉjUÉ ¥ÀjµÀÌgÀuÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ ¤ªÀ𻹠vÉjUÉ ªÀ¸ÀƯÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ©¯ï PÀ¯ÉPÀÖgï ¯ÁV£ï£À°è ¤ªÀðºÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸ÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÁUÀÆ EzÀĪÀgÉUÀÆ ªÀ¸ÀƯÁVgÀĪÀ vÉjUÉ ªÀ¸ÀƯÁw ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß PÀrªÉÄ EgÀ¸Á°UÉ CªÀPÁ±À«®èzÀAvÉ ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÁV ¹§âA¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ©¯ï PÀ¯ÉPÀÖgï ªÀiÁgÀAiÀÄå gÀªÀjAzÀ ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¨ÁQ EgÀĪÀ ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄAvÉ ²æêÀÄw ªÀ¸ÀĪÀÄw ©¯ï PÀ¯ÉPÀÖgï EªÀgÀÄ gÀÆ. 31,16,976/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ²æà ±À²PÀĪÀiÁgï, PÀèPïð PÀA PÀA¥ÀÇålgï D¥ÀgÉÃlgï CªÀgÀÄ gÀÆ.2,94,700/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAQUÉ ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀjUÉ £ÉÆÃnøï eÁj ªÀiÁr PÀÆqÀ¯Éà ¨ÁQ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAQUÉ ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹zÀÄÝ, vÀ¦àzÀ°è F §UÉÎ ªÉÄî¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ ªÀgÀ¢ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ ²æà ±À²PÀĪÀiÁgï, PÀèPïð PÀA PÀA¥ÀÇålgï D¥ÀgÉÃlgïgÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 17/04/2024 gÀAzÀÄ gÀÆ.2.94,700/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ²æêÀÄw ªÀ¸ÀĪÀÄw, ©¯ï PÀ¯ÉPÀÖgï gÀªÀgÀÄ gÀÆ.24,77,000/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, gÀÆ.2.51,554/- UÀ¼À gÀ²Ã¢AiÀÄÄ vÀ¥ÁàV £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj gÀ²Ã¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¸À®Ä f¯Áè ¸ÀAAiÉÆÃdPÀjUÉ ªÀÄ£À« ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. 2023-24 £Éà ¸Á°UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ PÀrªÉÄ EgÀ¸Á®Ä ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ.3.88,422/- PÉÌ ±ÉÃ.15gÀ §rØAiÉÆqÀ£É ¨ÁåAQUÉ ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 21/05/2024 gÀAzÀÄ gÀÆ.3,88,422/- ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±ÉÃ.15 gÀ §rØ gÀÆ.58.263/- ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ²æêÀÄw ªÀ¸ÀĪÀÄwgÀªÀgÀ vÀAVAiÀiÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw ¨sÁ£ÀĪÀÄwgÀªÀgÀ SÁvɬÄAzÀ gÀÆ.8.50,000/- UÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀUÀð-1 gÀ SÁvÉUÉ dªÉÄAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ²æêÀÄw ªÀ¸ÀĪÀÄwAiÀĪÀgÀÄ vÉjUÉ ªÀ¸ÀƯÁw ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ PÀrªÉÄ EgÀ¸Á®Ä ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß vÀÄvÁðV ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £ÀUÀzÀÄ qÁæ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«®èzÀ PÁgÀt vÀAVAiÀÄ SÁvɬÄAzÀ £ÉÃgÀªÁV UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ªÀUÀð-1 gÀ SÁvÉUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. 2023-24 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è gÀÆ.6,62,590/- UÀ¼ÀÄ dªÉÄAiÀiÁUÀzÉà ¨ÁQ EgÀĪÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ°è vÀ¥ÁàV £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVgÀĪÀ gÀ²Ã¢ ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ. 2,51,554/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÉzÀÄ G½PÉ ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ. 3,88,422/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ±ÉÃ.15gÀ §rØ ¸ÉÃj¹ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 21/05/2024 gÀAzÀÄ ¨ÁåAQUÉ ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀUÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ vÉjUÉ ªÀ¸ÀƯÁw ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ°è «¼ÀA§ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ¹§âA¢UÀ½UÉ PÀÆqÀ¯Éà £ÉÆÃnøï eÁj ªÀiÁr vÉjUÉ ªÀ¸ÀƯÁw ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹gÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ºÁUÀÆ vÉjUÉ ªÀ¸ÀƯÁw ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä «¼ÀA§ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀgÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÀÄgÀÄzÉÝñÀ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ °TvÀ ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¯ÉPÁÌ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ¤AiÉÆÃUÀzÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, 2023-24 £Éà ¸Á°UÉ ¸ÀA¨sÀA¢¹zÀAvÉ PÀrªÉÄ EgÀ¸Á®Ä ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ.6,62,596/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨ÁQ G½¹PÉÆArzÀÄÝ, G½¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀ ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ°è gÀÆ.2,51,554/- qÀ§¯ï gÀ²Ã¢ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÉzÀÄ G½PÉ gÀÆ.4,11,042/- ±ÉÃ.15 gÀAvÀ §rØ ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ.61.656/- MlÄÖ ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ.4,72,698/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸À¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üÃPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄAvÉ gÀÆ.6,62,596/- UÀ¼À ¨ÁQ ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ°è gÀÆ.2,51,554/- qÀ§¯ï gÀ²Ã¢ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÉÃzÀÄ gÀÆ.3,88,422/-, ±ÉÃ.15 gÀAvÉ §rØ ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ.58.263/- MlÄÖ ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ.4,46,685/- ¥ÁªÀw¹zÀÄÝ, PÀrªÉÄ EgÀ¸Á®Ä ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ.22,620/-, ±ÉÃ.15 gÀ §rØAiÀÄAvÉ gÀÆ.3393/- UÀ¼ÀÄ MlÄÖ ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ.26,013/- UÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÁªÀwUÉ ¨ÁQ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. vÉjUÉ ªÀ¸ÀƯÁw ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ¤UÀ¢vÀ CªÀ¢üAiÉƼÀUÉ ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä «¼ÀA§ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ©¯ï PÀ¯ÉPÀÖgï ºÁUÀÆ PÀA¥ÀÇålgï C¥ÀgÉÃlgï gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄAr¹ PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸À®Ä ºÁUÀÆ PÉÊUÉÆAqÀ PÀæªÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ ªÀgÀ¢ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀjUÉ ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. JA§ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄgÀªÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ¹§âA¢UÀ¼ÀÄ vÉjUÉ ªÀ¸ÀƯÁw ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ¤UÀ¢vÀ CªÀ¢üAiÉƼÀUÉ ¨ÁåAQUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä «¼ÀA§ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ 1) ²æà ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ n. ¢éwÃAiÀÄ zÀeÉð ¯ÉPÀÌ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ, ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ f¯ÉègÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞzÀ D¥ÁzÀ£ÉUÀ¼À PÀÄjvÀÄ vÀ¤SÉ/«ZÁgÀuÉ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä PÀ®A 17(J) ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¥Àæw§AzsÀPÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ-1988 gÀ jÃvÁå ¥ÀǪÁð£ÀĪÀÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. ºÁUÀÆ 2) ²æêÀÄw ªÀ¸ÀĪÀÄw J¸ï. ©¯ï PÀ¯ÉPÀÖgï. ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ f¯Éè ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3) ²æà ±À²PÀĪÀiÁgï ºÉZï. ©¯ï - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 PÀ¯ÉPÀÖgï/PÀA¥ÀÇålgï D¥ÀgÉÃlgï, ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ f¯Éè EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞzÀ D¥ÁzÀ£ÉUÀ¼À PÀÄjvÀÄ vÀ¤SÉ/«ZÁgÀuÉ £ÀqɸÀ®Ä G¯ÉèÃR(3) gÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwAiÀÄ ¹§âA¢AiÀÄ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥À, ªÉÃvÀ£À ±ÉæÃtÂUÀ¼ÀÄ, £ÉêÀÄPÁw «zsÁ£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ¸ÉêÁ µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼À ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 2020 gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 8 gÀ G¥À ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 4 (i) (ii) (iii) gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è C£ÀĪÀÄw ¤ÃrzÉ. vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹. ªÀÄÄRå PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C¢üPÁj, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ f¯Áè ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï. ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß:- 1. ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¥ÀgÀ ªÀÄÄRå PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ, UÁæ«ÄÃuÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï E¯ÁSÉ, §ºÀĪÀĺÀrUÀ¼À PÀlÖqÀ, qÁ.©.Dgï.CA¨ÉÃqÀÌgï «¢, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-560001 gÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjUÉ ªÀiÁ»wUÁV, 2. ªÀiÁ£Àå DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï DAiÀÄÄPÁÛ®AiÀÄ, UÁæ«ÄÃuÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï E¯ÁSÉ, PÉ.f.gÀ¸ÉÛ, UÁA¢ü£ÀUÀgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-560009 gÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjUÉ ªÀiÁ»wUÁV, 3. PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄgÀªÀgÀ ªÀiÁ»wUÁV, 4. CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ/¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwUÉ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw, ©qÀ¢ ºÉÆç½ gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ f¯Éè- 562109gÀªÀgÀ ªÀiÁ»wUÁV, 5. gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ f¯Áè ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwAiÀÄ°è ¢éwÃAiÀÄ zÀeÉð ¯ÉPÀÌ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ¹§âA¢UÉ ¸ÉêÁ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ¤ªÁðºÀPÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ»wUÁV, 13. A perusal of the aforesaid approval/permission is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the same lacks application of mind on the part of the CEO, Zilla Panchayat before granting approval; in fact, the said approval dated 23.07.2024 does not refer to any material collected or obtained or available as against the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 petitioner so as to permit the investigation to be conducted as against him. On the other hand, in the said approval, the CEO, Zilla Panchayat clearly states that accused Nos.3 and 4 were notified and informed about the short remittance/deposit, pursuant to which, they had voluntarily come forward and deposited certain amount. Further, the said approval also does not record any findings or make out any allegations against the petitioner or his alleged role or involvement in the alleged offences of misappropriation, embezzlement and financial misconduct of panchayat funds. The said approval dated 23.07.2024 is clearly an unreasoned, cryptic, laconic and non-speaking order without assigning any reasons or making out any grounds as to why the CEO, Zilla Panchayat was granting prior/previous approval/permission to conduct investigation / enquiry / inquiry as against the petitioner and consequently, the said report which culminated in the impugned FIR being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to facts and law, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed on this ground also. 14. Upon obtaining prior/previous permission/approval under Section 17A of the P.C Act, the Police Inspector, Karnataka - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 Lokayukta, conducted a preliminary enquiry and submitted a report dated 14.11.2024 to the IGP, who issued a Memodandum dated 15.11.2024 to the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Ramanagara to register the impugned FIR as against the petitioner and remaining accused persons. The said preliminary enquiry report dated 14.11.2024, is as hereunder: ¸ÀASÉå: PÀ.¯ÉÆÃ.gÁf/¦.L-3/¦.E.-02&03/2024 ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ-3 gÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj. PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ f¯Éè. ¢:14-11-2024 gÀªÀjUÉ, ªÀiÁ£Àå ¥Éǰøï C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ f¯Éè. ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, «µÀAiÀÄ:- ²æà zÉêÀgÁdÄ ©£ï DAd£À¥Àà, ±ÉõÀVjºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ, ©qÀ¢ ºÉÆç½, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ & f¯Éè gÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ zÀÆgÀÄ CfðUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ‘dAn ¥ÁæxÀ«ÄPÀ «ZÁgÀuÁ ªÀgÀ¢' ¸À°è¸ÀPÉƼÀÄîwÛgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ. G¯ÉèÃR:- 1. PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ J¸ï.¦ PÀbÉÃj eÁÕ¥À£À ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: PÀ.¯ÉÆÃ/gÁf/J¸ï¦/¦.E-02/2024, ¢:26.08.2024 2. PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ J¸ï.¦ PÀbÉÃj eÁÕ¥À£À ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: PÀ.¯ÉÆÃ/gÁf/J¸ï¦/¦.E-03/2024, ¢:14.10.2024 ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ G¯ÉèÃRUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£ÀågÀ°è ¤ªÉâ¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ, ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÄîÌAqÀ zÀÆgÀÄ CfðAiÀÄÄ CfðzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æà zÉêÀgÁdÄ ©£ï DAd£À¥Àà gÀªÀgÀÄ PÉÃAzÀæ PÀbÉÃj, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀjUÉ ¤ÃrzÁÝVzÀÄÝ. PÉÃAzÀæ PÀbÉÃj, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ gÀªÀgÀÄ G¯ÉèÃR-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ G¯ÉèÃR-2 gÀ CfðAiÀÄ°è£À F PɼÀPÀAqÀ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ¥ÁæxÀ«ÄPÀ «ZÁgÀuÉ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ C£ÀĪÀÄw ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. PÀæ.¸ÀA. JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ, ºÀÄzÉÝ, PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ¸ÀܼÀ. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 1. ²æà ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ.n, ¢éwÃAiÀÄ zÀeÉð ¯ÉPÀÌ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ. ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ, ©qÀ¢ ºÉÆç½, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ f¯Éè 2. ²æêÀÄw ªÀ¸ÀĪÀÄw, ©¯ï PÀ¯ÉPÀÖgï ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ, ©qÀ¢ ºÉÆç½, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ f¯Éè 3. ²æà ±À²PÀĪÀiÁgï.ºÉZï, ©¯ï PÀ¯ÉPÀÖgï/PÀA¥ÀÇålgï D¥ÀgÉÃlgï ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ, ©qÀ¢ ºÉÆç½, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ f¯Éè 4. ²æà AiÀÄwñï, ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁj. ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ, ©qÀ¢ ºÉÆç½, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ f¯Éè F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ¥ÁxÀ«ÄPÀ «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉÆArzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ°è F PÉüÀPÀAqÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛªÉ. > ¯ÉPÀÌ ¥Àj±ÉÆÃzsÀ£Á ªÀgÀ¢ 2023-24£Éà ¸Á°£À DyðPÀ ªÀµÀðzÀ°è MlÄÖ 2,30,34,259/-gÀÆUÀ¼À vÉjUÉ ªÀ¸ÀÆ° ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀ°è ªÀiÁZïð-2024 gÀ CAvÀåPÉÌ 1,73,48,703/-gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAPïUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, G½zÀ 56,85,556/- gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀrªÉÄ EgÀ¸Á®Ä ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀ® PÀrªÉÄ EgÀ¸Á®Ä ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¢:03-05-2024 gÀAzÀÄ ¨ÁåAPï dªÉÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. > 2023-24 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è ªÀ¸ÀÆ° ªÀiÁrzÀ MlÄÖ vÉjUÉ ªÉÆvÀÛ 2,30,34,259/- gÀÆ. UÀ½VAvÀ ºÉZÁÑVgÀĪÀ ªÉÄïÉÆßÃlPÉÌ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. > ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛAiÀÄ ¨ÁåAPï ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV ªÉÄïÉÆßÃlPÉÌ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉUÀ¼ÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. > ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ 2023-24£Éà ¸Á°£À ¯ÉPÀÌ ¥Àj±ÉÆÃzsÀ£Á ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è ªÀ¸ÀÆ° ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ gÁd¸ÀézÀ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß «¼ÀA§ªÁV dªÉÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï DAiÀĪÀåAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¯ÉPÀÌ ¥ÀvÀæ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 2006 gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 19 gÀAvÉ ªÀ¸ÀÆ°AiÀiÁzÀ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß 24 UÀAmÉAiÉƼÀUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JA§ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ«zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj UÁæ.¥ÀA.AiÀÄ°è «¼ÀA§ªÁV dªÉÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. > 2023-24 £Éà DyðPÀ ªÀµÀðzÀ°è MlÄÖ- 2,30,34,259/- gÀÆ UÀ¼ÀÄ vÉjUÉ ªÀ¸ÀƯÁwAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ªÀ¸ÀƯÁw ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ°è ¢:16.04.2024 gÀªÀgÉUÉ 1,93,22,583/- gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAPïUÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÁVAiÀÄÆ G½zÀ ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ°è ²æêÀÄw ªÀ¸ÀĪÀÄw, - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 PÀgÀ ªÀ¸ÀÆ°UÁgÀgÀÄ 31,16,976/- gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ²æà ±À²PÀĪÀiÁgï, PÀA¥ÀÇålgï D¥ÀgÉÃlgï, 2,94,700/- gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß 2023-24£Éà ¸Á°UÉ PÀrªÉÄ EgÀ¸Á®Ä ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ½AzÀ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. > ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢é.zÀ.¯É.¸À gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä PÀvÀðªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß dªÁ¨ÁÝj¬ÄAzÀ ¤ªÀð»¸À¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ PÀvÀðªÀå ¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀªÉ¸ÀVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. > ¸ÀzÀj Cfð ¥Àj²Ã®£ÉUÉ ºÉaÑ£À zÁR¯Áw/PÀqÀvÀUÀ¼À CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CªÀéjAzÀ 1. ²æà AiÀÄwñï, »A¢£À ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, 2. ²æà ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ.n, ¢é.zÀ.¯É.¸À, 3. ²æêÀÄw ªÀ¸ÀĪÀÄw, ©¯ï PÀ¯ÉPÀÖgï, 4. ²æà ±À²PÀĪÀiÁgï ºÉZï, f¯ï PÀ¯ÉPÀÖgï/PÀA¥ÀÇålgï D¥ÀgÉÃlgï, ªÀÄAZÀ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ, ©qÀ¢, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ f¯Éè gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÉÄïÉÆßÃlPÉÌ ¸Á©ÃvÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀjgÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹PÉÆAqÀÄ vÀ¤SÉ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä ªÀiÁ£ÀågÀÄ C£ÀĪÀÄw PÉÆr¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ. vÀªÀÄä «zsÉÃAiÀÄ ¸À»/- (ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀPÀĪÀiÁgï.ºÉZï) ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ-3 ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ 15. A perusal of the aforesaid preliminary enquiry report will also indicate that apart from the fact that there are no findings or allegations against the petitioner nor any material found against him, nothing is contained or found in the said report warranting registration of an FIR against the petitioner for the offences alleged against him. As stated supra, even this preliminary enquiry report is without any application of mind not even referring or adverting to the role or involvement of the petitioner who was only / merely a SDAA, who had no role to play in relation to collection of tax, - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 issuance of receipts, remittance of tax etc., for the purpose of constituting commission of alleged offences of financial misconduct, misappropriation and embezzlement of panchayat funds. On the other hand, the entire preliminary enquiry report makes reference only to accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 and not as against petitioner – accused No.2. Under these circumstances also, in the absence of any material to incriminate the petitioner for the alleged offences even in the preliminary enquiry report, respondent No.1 was not clearly justified in directing registration of the impugned FIR as against the petitioner and consequently, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed on this ground also. 16. In pursuance of the aforesaid preliminary enquiry report, the 1st respondent registered the impugned FIR, which is nothing but verbatim repetition/reiteration of the earlier complaint, preliminary report, communication, preliminary enquiry report etc., all of which, clearly indicate that there is complete and total lack of any material so as to establish the involvement or role of the petitioner in the alleged offences pertaining to financial misconduct, misappropriation and embezzlement of panchayat funds; neither the FIR nor earlier reports indicate collection of any material - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 whatsoever against the petitioner in pursuance of the complaint dated 03.05.2024, which was undisputedly not directed against the petitioner (SDAA) nor were there any allegations made against him, thereby leading to the sole and unmistakable conclusion that the impugned FIR qua the petitioner is an abuse of process of law warranting interference in the present petition. 17. In the case of K. Shiva Kumar’s case supra, the Madras High Court held as under: “13. Producing the letter issued by the approving authoirty under Sec. 17-A of the P.C Act, for the perusal of the Court, the learned AAG submitted that proceedings under Sec.17A is not justiciable, for if investigation were to be halted based on a perceived inadequacy of application of mind of the authority granting approval, then it will hamstring the very purpose of the PCA, and hence the Court may not be justified in embarking on a roving enquiry either of the adequacy of application of mind by the approval-granting authority under Sec.17A, or the materials which the accused may produce in defence of his case at this stage, for Court is not expected to suspect a FIR, but to believe it. Reliance was place on the ratio of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal [AIR 1992 SC 604]. 14. According to Mr. V. Karthic, learned Senior Advocate, Sec. 17-A was enacted pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy Vs Union of India [(2014) 8 SCC 682] and he added that material collected dehors the approval under Sec. 17-A cannot be obliterated in view of the decision in Rishbud Vs State of - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 Delhi [AIR 1955 SC 156]. Mr. John Sathyan, learned Senior Advocate drew the attention of this Court to the SOP of the Government of India for processing cases under Sec. 17-A which contemplates that forwarding of clear and authenticated documents to the authority whose approval is mandatory for commencing any enquiry, inquiry or investigation in terms of Sec.17A is mandatory. It was pointed out that para 4.2 of the SOP would indicate that the police officer must seek prior approval before verifying the materials which are collected. Referring to the ratio in Shreeroopa Vs State of Karnataka, [2023 SCCOnline Kar 68] the learned counsel submitted that the power to evaluate the material collected by the IO was with the authority at a time when such applies his mind to consider a case for grant/refusal of approval. Hence, given the object behind Sec. 17-A, application of mind by the aprroval-granting authoirty is sine qua non before any enquiry, inquiry or investigation can take place. 15. This brings to fore a need to understand the functional objectives of Sec.17A of PC Act pragmatically. In jurisdictions or in genre of cases where Sec.17A does not have a role to play, there is greater merit in the contention that whenever Courts are required to consider the sustainability of a FIR, it might have to confine its enquiry to its contents for ascertaining if the FIR dislcoses an investigable case. However, the Parliament in its legislative wisdom has chosen to differentiate the criminal allegations against a public servant pertaining to the administrative decision taken or recommendation made from other classes of offences, and therefore in the classes of cases where Sec.17A is applicable, different consideration will necessarily prevail. 16. This now takes this Court to understand the scope of Sec.17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The provision has an interesting history which must be noticed. Vide Act 45 of 2003, - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 Section 6-A was inserted into the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The provision was as under: “6-A.Approval of Central Government to conduct inquiry or investigation.—(1) The Delhi Special Police Establishment shall not conduct any inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) except with the previous approval of the Central Government where such allegation relates to— (a) the employees of the Central Government of the level of Joint Secretary and above; and (b) such officers as are appointed by the Central Government in corporations established by or under any Central Act, Government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by that Government. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any gratification other than legal remuneration referred to in clause (c) of the Explanation to Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988).” The constitutional validity of Section 6-A was assailed before the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy Vs CBI [(2014) 8 SCC 682]. The contention raised therein was that Section 6-A had the effect of shielding corrupt public servants and was, therefore, violative of the rule of law enshrined in Article 14. Section 6-A was eventually struck down by the Constitution Bench in 2014 in the decision cited above. 17. Section 17-A of the PC Act is therefore a variant of Section 6- A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, and this Court is informed that there is a challenge pending to its constitutional validity in the Supreme Court. However, for the present, the Court must proceed on the basis of the provision as it exists. Section 17- A was inserted by Act 16 of 2018 and came into force on 26.07.2018, and it reads as follows: - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 “17A. Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties.—No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval— (a) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of that Government; (b) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of that Government; (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed: Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person: Provided further that the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this section within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month.” The terms “inquiry”, “enquiry”, and “investigation” have been elaborately explained by the Supreme Court in Nara Chandrababu Naidu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh [2024 SCC Online SC 47] and hence they do not require any reiteration. 18. From a plain reading of the provision, it is apparent that the scope of protection afforded by Section 17-A is now confined to alleged offences emanating from (i) any recommendation made or (ii) decision taken by the public servant while acting in discharge of his official functions or duties. In such cases any form of enquiry, inquiry or investigation is statutorily barred without obtaining previous approval from the authorities set out in Section17A (a)– (c). The obvious object is to safeguard the public servant from - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 vexatious prosecutions and to allay the fear in the minds of the administration that even honest exercise of discretionary functions would expose them to criminal prosecution. The proviso carves out an obvious exception to cases which are at variance with the purpose of the protection. 19. In Yashwant Sinha Vs CBI [(2020) 2 SCC 338] the Supreme Court has held that the compliance with Section 17-A is mandatory. It declared: “In terms of Section 17-A, no police officer is permitted to conduct any enquiry or inquiry or conduct investigation into any offence done by a public servant where the offence alleged is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by the public servant in discharge of his public functions without previous approval, inter alia, of the authority competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed. In respect of the public servant, who is involved in this case, it is clause (c), which is applicable. Unless, therefore, there is previous approval, there could be neither inquiry or enquiry or investigation.” Realising the above position perhaps, the State of Tamil Nadu came out with GO MS 173 dated 19.12.2018 to set down the procedure for processing complaints against public servants in the matter of according approval under Section 17-A. Paragraph 3 of the said GO reads as follows: “i) On receipt of complaint / allegation / source report relating to offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti- Corruption shall initially take up a factual verification in the first instance and shall weed out baseless, vague, frivolous, vexatious complaints. ii) No action is required to be taken on anonymous complaints, irrespective of the nature of allegations and such complaints need to be filed. iii) If a complaint contains verifiable allegations, it shall be verified with the complainant for owning / disowning, as the - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 case may be, and if no response is received from the complainant within a reasonable time, the said complaint may be filed as pseudonymous. iv) Repeated complaints regarding the same allegations and previously disposed, may be filed. v) Complaints / Petitions received against the elected members of the Local Bodies and the Officers and employees working under the local bodies, shall be forwarded to the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Ombudsman for further action under the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Ombudsman Act, 2014. Paragraph 4(vi) and 5 of the GO are relevant to the present case, and reads as follows: “(i) to (v).... ...... vi) where it is proposed to register a Regular Case for investigation against Public Servants, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti- Corruption, shall forward the materials to the authority competent to remove him from his office, through the Vigilance Commission, with a copy marked to the monitoring authority concerned as indicated in para 6 below. 5. The competent authority, on receipt of materials, shall arrive at a conclusion for it to be conveyed, within the time limit prescribed in the second proviso to section 17A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, directly to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, with a copy marked to the Secretary to Government / Head of the Department concerned, as the case may be and to the Vigilance Commission.” In addition, the Government of India (DOPT) has issued a stage wise SOP for dealing with cases under Section 17-A on 03.09.2021. 20.1 The foregoing discussion informs that vis-a-vis the quashing of FIR involving criminal accusation against public servants as regards the decisions or recommendations they make in the course of their official duty must mandatorily go through a pre-enquiry or pre-investigation vetting process by a non-policeman (read it as the authority granting approval) since Sec.17A approval is mandatory before the policeman can take the first step towards enquiry or investigation. Therefore, the general rule that Court shall not look - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 beyond the allegation in the FIR while considering a challenge to it may not be applicable to cases where 17A of the PC Act applies. In other words, whenever a FIR pertaining to offences which falls within the net of Sec.17A is challenged, the Court may have to, nay, must have to refer to the quality of application of mind involved in granting approval. 20.2 It now becomes evident that the approval process mandated under Sec.17A of the PCA is a statutory filter, devised to ensure that the honest public servants are protected from vexatious and frivolous complaints against the bonafide decisions that they take. It is not a ritual but something that demands serious application of mind. However, if the argument of the learned AAG that a FIR can be tested for its merit only based on what it alleges is accepted in its entirety, then there is a risk of reducing the need for applying the mind at the time of granting approval under Sec.17A to redundancy. When the Parliament intends that Sec.17A approval- proceedings is mandatory, the Court is only expected to give the kind of prominence which the legislature has envisaged, and the Court must refrain from becoming a super legislature to reduce Sec.17A to redundancy with its interpretations, merely because it has the power to iron out absurdities while interpreting a statute. 21. While considering the grant or refusal of approval, Section 17-A places a duty on the approving authority to objectively take a call on whether prosecution is necessary. After all such authority would be an insider and would be part of the administrative set-up. Their appreciation of an allegation guided by their sheer familiarity and knowledge with the way decisions are taken and recommendations are made is critical to their decision to grant or refuse to grant approval. Besides, he or she can access relevant files if it is felt necessary in relation to the allegation made against a public servant - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 in the course of application of mind to a request for granting approval under Sec.17A of the Act. After all, it is not every transgression of some rule that should necessarily invite criminal prosecution. 22. As stated in paragraph 5.2 above, Sec.17A has both the shades of procedural law and also substantive law. But the point is, whether any approval granted under Sec.17A is justiciable and whether the decision to accord or refuse approval under Section 17A is amenable to judicial review and if so to what extent? The Court now turns to address these questions. 23.1 In construing the nature of the power exercised by the Government under Section 17-A there is no doubt that it is neither judicial nor quasi-judicial in character (as there is neither a lis involved nor does it affect any of the rights of the accused persons in praesenti). Thus, the power exercised by the Government is merely administrative in character. Nevertheless, it does not follow that merely because it is administrative in character the exercise of such power is outside the ken of judicial review. In the present age of evolved constitutionalism, there is no such thing as unreviewable powers. Indeed, in the context of reviewing the exercise of administrative powers, the Supreme Court itself has pointed out in Ram Avtar Sharma Vs State of Haryana [(1985) 3 SCC 189] the following: “Every administrative determination must be based on grounds relevant and germane to the exercise of power. If the administrative determination is based on the irrelevant, extraneous or grounds not germane to the exercise of power it is liable to be questioned in exercise of the power of judicial review.” 23.2. This takes us to the second aspect on ascertaining the outer contours of judicial review. Here it must be emphasised that the existence of a power is one thing and the manner of its exercise is quite another. In Shreeroopa Vs State of Karnataka [2023 SCC Online Kar 68] a learned single judge of the Karnataka High Court has made the following observations in the context of Section 17-A: “33. Section 17A of the Act is drafted with the overarching objective of ensuring that unnecessary - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 investigations against public servants are prevented, and the State Government is required to take a decision to accord or refuse approval to conduct an investigation within a time frame. This indicates the balance that the law intended to strike in the manner of an investigation being conducted against a public servant. 34. It is also clear from the wording of Section 17A of the Act that the State Government is not required to exhaustively and meticulously consider all the material available with the Investigating Officer at the time he seeks approval, and it is only required to examine and consider whether the opinion formed by the Investigating Officer that an investigation is warranted is justified or not. If the State Government is satisfied that the opinion formed by the Investigating Officer is justified and its employee is required to be subjected to an investigation, the State Government can accord its approval.” 24. This indicates Sec.17A does not require a meticulous examination of all the materials, but it does require that the approving-authority examine and ‘consider’ some material which is essential to appreciate the need for an enquiy, inquiry or investigation into the complaint. If only complaint has to be considered by such authority, then the dictum in Lalitakumari case [(2014) 2 SCC 1] would suffice. And if the legislative intent behind Sec.17A is to protect honest public servants from victimisation at the hands of the unscrupulous, and as in the instant case also at the hands of a suspected blackmailer, then approval under Sec.17A cannot be limited to a consideration of the mere complaint, but must be based on something beyond it. And therefore, it need not even be confined to the materials which the investigation agency may or may not provide. After all without an approval, the investigation agency cannot even enquire or investigate to collect materials necessary for the consideration of the approving authority. 25. The term ‘consider’ means to think over; it connotes that there should be active application of the mind. In other words, the term “consider” postulates consideration of all the relevant aspects of the matter (See: Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat [(2008) 4 SCC 144]). If there is no proper consideration or application of mind as regards the requirements of law, the administrative action would stand vitiated (See: S.N. Chandrashekar Vs State of Karnataka [(2006) 3 SCC 208)]. 26. There may however, arise situations where the quality of application of mind in granting approval under Sec.17A may not be satisfactory, but the investigating agency may have laid their hands on incriminating material which in itself may establish that prima - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 facie there exists an investigable case. Can the Court now reject the FIR and the investigation done merely because the quality of application of mind in granting approval under Sec.17A is not satisfactory? This Court considers that would be far-fetched since a good work an investigating agency may do cannot be sabotaged by an administrative authority's failure to apply its mind to the materials while granting approval under Sec.17A. The intent behind Sec.17A does not extend to the extent of undoing a good job done by an investigating agency. 27. It could now be dervied, that non-complicance with Sec.17A of the PCA cannot be equated to inadequate application of mind by the authority who grants approval under Sec.17A. While the former is mandatory and its non-compliance can be a ground to set aside a FIR, inadequate or unatisfactory application of mind to materials while granting approval under Sec.17A can hardly be a ground to quash a FIR unless it is coupled with the inability of the investigating agency to gather any incriminatory evidence. It depends on the quality of allegation made in the FIR, and the kind of materials the investigating agency could gather from the date of FIR till the date of hearing of a case involving a challenge to the very FIR. It is while evaluating them, the Court may also refer to the quality of approval granted under Sec.17A. 28. To sum up the position: a) An approval under Sec.17A is mandatory, and the authority who grants approval shall chiefly focus to eliminate the possibility that a public servant who faces an accusation of criminality for any administrative decision he has taken, or administrative recommendation he has made is wrongly prosecuted or victimised; (b) While satisfying himself before granting or refusing to grant approval under Sec.17A of the PCA, the authority concerned is required to apply his mind not just to the complaint before it but also to other materials which may throw light on the allegation and need for a prosecution; (c) An authority granting approval need not examine all the materials the way the Court may examine the evidence before it; but such authority still has to apply his mind to such materials which his expertise, familiarity and knowledge in the field may direct him to probe to satisfy himself as to whether the nature of decision taken or recommendation made leads to a bonafide suspicion about the integrity of the public servant. - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 (d) An order granting approval under Sec.17A is only in the nature of an administrative order to set the prosecution on a complaint in motion. It is not justiciable. However, a collateral argument may be placed on it while challenging a FIR. (e) When a FIR is challenged, it is always open to the Court to consider the quality of approval granted under Sec.17A. (f) If in any proceedings for quashing the FIR, the Court has reason to believe that the FIR might be vexatious, motivated or triggered by malafide or there exists an element of bonafide in the manner of decision taken or recommendation made by a public servant, then approval granted under Sec.17A of the PCA without adequate application of mind may become critical to the outcome of the decision in the case. (g) If however, during the course of hearing, the Court finds that the quality of application of mind as disclosed in the proceedings of granting approval is inadequate, but if the investigating agency is found to have gathered incriminating material during investigation, then the quality of the approval granted may not impact the sustenance of the FIR.” 18. If the material on record including the impugned FIR are examined, bearing in mind that the principals laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that apart from the fact that initial report dated 06.05.2024 does not disclose as to why permission was required to proceed as against the petitioner without there being any basis or allegations made against him by the 2nd respondent – de facto complainant, the order dated 23.07.2024 passed under Section 17A of the P.C Act is vitiated on account of - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31199 CRL.P No. 13165 of 2024 non-application of mind and being unreasoned and non-speaking, the total and complete absence of any material collected or contained in the preliminary enquiry report preceding the impugned FIR clearly establishes that the petitioner cannot be incriminated for the offences alleged against him, particularly when the material on record including the impugned FIR do not satisfy the ingredients of the alleged offences nor disclose the commission of the alleged offences by the petitioner and consequently, I am of the view that continuation of the impugned proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR qua the petitioner would amount to an abuse of process of law and the same deserves to be quashed. 19. In the result, I pass the following; ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.07/2024 dated 19.11.2024 registered by the 1st respondent – Lokayukta, Ramanagar qua petitioner – accused No.2, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE EM/SRL