- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4235 WP No. 202054 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. 202054 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN SRI.BASAWARAJU MAGI S/O LATE SHIVASHARANAPPA MAGI AGED 40 YEARS, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BBMP/INCHARGE REVENUE OFFICER, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BBMP, BANGALORE R/AT FLAT NO.002, MOTI APARTMENT, WEST PARK ROAD NEAR GANDHI BHAVANA KUMARA PARK EAST BANGALORE – 560 001 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.SACHIN M.MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE) AND THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE REP. BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AIWAN E SHAHI AREA, SHAMBHOGNLLI KALABURAGI DIST. KALABURAGI – 585 102 … RESPONDENT (SRI.SUBHASH MALLAPUR, SPL. PP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL/QUASH FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED FIR DATED 09.07.2024, IN CRIME NO.8/2024 REGD. BY THE RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A) KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, KALABURAGI, CONSEQUENTLY, QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4235 WP No. 202054 of 2024 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: 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.8/2024 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 First Division Assistant in the office of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short ‘BBMP’), Bengaluru. Thereafter, he was promoted to the cadre of Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), BBMP in the year 2023. The petitioner rendered his entire service in Bengaluru City. The respondent police stated to have obtained the Source Report, as per the said report, the petitioner had possessed disproportionate assets worth of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4235 WP No. 202054 of 2024 297.86%. Therefore, a case came to be registered against the petitioner for the above said offences. 3. Heard Sri.Sachin M. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Subhash Mallapur, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent – Lokayukta. 4. 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 cannot be permitted to conduct the investigation. 5. It is further submitted that FIR is not sustainable under law as there is no preliminary enquiry conducted by the police based on the source report. There is no check period to show that which period to which period the petitioner has amassed the disproportionate assets. 6. It is further submitted that FIR ought not to have been registered without having obtained the source report or preliminary enquiry. Therefore, the proceedings has to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4235 WP No. 202054 of 2024 be quashed. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 7. Per contra, learned Special Prosecutor for the respondent – Lokayukta filed the statement of objections and he further submitted that the petitioner has amassed the disproportionate assets which has disproportionate to his known source of income. The said fact was known to the respondent police through the source report. Primarily, it is noticed that the petitioner has committed offences as stated supra. 8. It is further submitted that while dealing with the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to consider as to whether or not there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused based on the material. Since the accused has committed a heinous offence and also he has possessed disproportionate assets, at this stage, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings. Making such submissions, learned Special Prosecutor for the respondent - Lokayukta prays to dismiss the petition. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the materials available on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4235 WP No. 202054 of 2024 record, it is relevant to note that the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised three grounds, namely, sanction has not been accorded by applying the proper mind. Before registration of FIR, a preliminary enquiry was required to be conducted, which is sine-qua-non. The source report said to be obtained is not in accordance with the law are concerned, it is relevant at this stage to refer the proposition of law before adverting to the facts of the case. 10. As regards the sanction, which is required to be obtained under Section of 17 of the P.C Act is concerned, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION CHENNAI CITY – I DEPARTMENT v/s. G.EASWARAN1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with similar issues held that, 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 1 2025 INSC 397 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4235 WP No. 202054 of 2024 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 Cr.P.C or in a proceeding under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution. 11. Having considered the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the validity of the sanction or permission for conducting the investigation by the Superintendent of Police is a matter of fact. Such being the case, it is not appropriate at this stage to come to the conclusion that proper permission has not been granted to the Investigating Officer to conduct the investigation cannot be sustained. 12. As regards the preliminary enquiry is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA v. CHANNAKESHAVA H.D AND ANOTHER2, 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 2 2025 SCC Online SC 753 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4235 WP No. 202054 of 2024 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.” 13. On careful reading of the above said dictum, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a preliminary enquiry can be dispensed with if the FIR is based on a detailed source report submitted to the Superintendent of Police. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel in respect of preliminary enquiry is sine-qua-non to register the FIR cannot also be sustained. 14. As regards the source report is concerned, the validity of the said source report and whether the respondent police have taken proper steps in securing the information properly, it is a matter of fact, therefore, the same has to be adjudicated in the trial. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4235 WP No. 202054 of 2024 15. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage, it is not appropriate to quash the entire proceedings. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE UN List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2