- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20591 WP No. 1574 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 1574 OF 2021 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. PUSHPALATHA S.C. AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO. 102, KISHORE RESIDENCY 3RD CROSS, NEW SAPTAGIRI LAYOUTL, UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 061. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C.V. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE AND SRI. VIKAS NAGAIAH C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHIEF VIGILENCE OFFICER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 3, MIDDLETON STREET, PRAFULLA CHANDRA SEN SARANI, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL - 700 071. 2. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION NO. 36, BELLARY RD GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU KARNTAKA - 560 032. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GEETHA RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE R-1 TO DISPOSE OFF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE R-2 FOR SANCTION FORTHWITH AND ETC., Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20591 WP No. 1574 of 2021 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed praying for the following reliefs : i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose off the request made by the second respondent for sanction regarding Annexure-K forthwith; ii) Pass any other order which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is the ex-wife of late K.L.Ramesh, who had taken up an Insurance Policy bearing No.602401311910001396 with the National Insurance Company Ltd. In the nominee column, the name of the petitioner is mentioned. It is the further case of the petitioner that, after the death of her husband, as the petitioner was the nominee to the aforesaid policy, she submitted a claim along with all required documents and the Insurance Company asked the petitioner to come to their office at Mandya, at the time of COVID-19. It is alleged by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20591 WP No. 1574 of 2021 petitioner that, when she went there, the officer of Insurance Company has demanded money from the petitioner for settlement of claim to which the petitioner has refused to do so. Immediately. the petitioner has approached the CBI as well as the first respondent. When there was no action taken, the petitioner has approached the second respondent under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and by communication dated 24.08.2020, it is stated that the CBI will not come within the purview of Right to Information Act, 2005. However, it is also stated that the RTI application does not pertain to human rights violations of corruption. Hence, RTI application along with IPO for ₹10/- was returned. However, it is to be informed that the complaints have been forwarded to the CVO, National Insurance Company Limited, Kolkata, vide office letter dated 22.06.2020 for taking necessary action at their end. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, as per Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the CBI requires sanction from the concerned and, as it was not given by the first respondent, they have come before this Court by filing the present petition. It is submitted by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20591 WP No. 1574 of 2021 learned counsel for the petitioner that, as the Manager/accused is working with the National Insurance Co. Ltd. it comes within the purview of the Central Government and, as such, the CBI has the power to investigate the same. According to the learned counsel, when a requisition is sought, respondents ought to have given permission to prosecute. It is submitted that right from 2020, this writ petition is pending and the first respondent has failed to file their objections till now. Today, they have placed before the Court the communication dated 09.09.2020 that the Vigilance Department has gone through the complaint and advised for closure of the complaint and the complaint was closed. It is submitted that if the complaint is closed long back, why the matter is still coming up before the court from several years and it was never brought to the notice of the Court. It is submitted that, with regard to the petitioner's entitlement, they would fight the litigation. But as far as the illegal demand made by the officers, an enquiry needs to be conducted and the respondent no.1 is required to grant permission. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20591 WP No. 1574 of 2021 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-CBI submits that they cannot entertain individual complaints of the nature and further when a complaint is given to them, they have just forwarded the complaint as it is and accordingly, they have forwarded the same to the respondent no.1. It is submitted that they have not sought for any permission to initiate prosecution. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has placed before the Court an affidavit of the first respondent stating that, they have closed the complaint. The Insurance Department has closed the complaint long back. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. It is stated in the claim that the petitioner is the wife of the deceased. When the claim petition is filed in the year 2015, they were divorced at that time itself and she cannot claim to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased and she cannot claim for settlement of claim. It is submitted that, in fact, she filed a Consumer Complaint and the same also came to be dismissed. Further, the Officers against whom she is alleging, are not made parties to this writ petition. It is submitted that the writ - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20591 WP No. 1574 of 2021 petition has become infructuous and for the reason that the complaint itself has been closed and if the petitioner is aggrieved of the same, she can question the same in an appropriate proceedings and nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. 7. The relief that is sought in this writ petition is a direction to the first respondent to grant permission for prosecution against the accused, against whom a complaint is given to the second respondent. The prayer as sought before the Court is, it is a case of the petitioner that the CBI has sought for permission for prosecution and that is not granted by the second respondent. When this Court asked the counsel appearing for the second respondent, it is submitted that they have never asked for any such permission from the first respondent for prosecution. They have only forwarded the complaint. 8. This court has perused the document that is placed before the Court at Annexure-M wherein it is stated that they - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20591 WP No. 1574 of 2021 are not amenable to the Right to Information Act, 2005. However, they have forwarded the complaint to the CVO, National Insurance Company Ltd. Kolkata by Letter dated 22.06.2020 for taking necessary action at their end. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this amounts to seeking permission under Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act. This Court is not able to appreciate the said submission. The letter itself is very clear. They have simply forwarded the complaint to the first respondent to take action at their end and at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be considered as a requisition from the CBI to initiate prosecution against the accused from the first respondent. In the light of the above discussion, the prayer that is sought for by the petitioner before this Court cannot be granted. 9. Hence this Court pass the following : ORDER i. This Court do not find any merits in the writ petition and is liable to be dismissed. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated 24.08.2020, she is at liberty to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20591 WP No. 1574 of 2021 ii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. iii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. Sd/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE RS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36