Karnataka High Court
Mr D B Gangaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
WRIT PETITION NO.1169/2020 (GM-RES)
C/W.
WRIT PETITION NO.12285/2023 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.26891/2023 (GM-RES)
IN WRIT PETITION NO.1169/2020:
BETWEEN:
MR. D.B. GANGAIAH
S/O LATE BYLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT DIBBURU,
WARD NO.6, DIBBURU POST
NEXT TO ASTALAKSHMI TEMPLE
OKKEDE ROAD
TUMAKURU-572 102. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR A., ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. KOKESHWARI H C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE
MULTI STORIED BUILDING
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF SURVEY SETTLEMENT
2
AND LAND RECORDS,
K.R.CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. MRS. S. BHASKARAN
S/O S. SRINIVASAN
AGE: MAJOR
R/AT NO.453, 5TH CROSS,
1ST MAIN ROAD
PANCHASHEELA NAGAR
MUDALAPALYA
BENGALURU-560 072. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R2;
R3 - SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH
THE FIR DATED 15.09.2018 CRIME NO.22/2018 AND THE
COMPLAINT DATED 23.08.2016 REGISTERED BY THE R-1 FOR
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 13(1)(c) AND 13(2) OF
THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 PENDING IN THE
COURT OF THE 23RD ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGLAURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B RESPECTIVELY
AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2018 PASSED
BYTHE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION NO.12285/2023:
BETWEEN:
SRI. V. SHANKAR
S/O LATE R. VENKATARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
RETIRED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
NO.331, 23RD CROSS,
3
JAYANAGAR 6TH BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 011. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (SERVICE-1)
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
VIDHANA VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL
OF POLICE (POLICE WING)
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. S. BHASKARAN
S/O S. SRINIVASAN
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
NO.453, 5TH CROOS, 1ST MAIN
PANCHASHEELANAGAR
MUDALAPALYA
BENGALURU - 560 072. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1;
R3 - SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
QUASHING THE GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING NO.DPAR 218
SAS 2020 BENGALURU DATED 05.07.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A
ISSUED BY THE R-1 AND ETC.
4
IN WRIT PETITION NO.26891/2023:
BETWEEN:
SRI. K. JAYAPRAKASH
S/O LATE N. KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT NO.171
16TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK
RABINDRANATH TAGORE NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 032
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
JOINT DIRECTOR OF
LAND RECORDS, K.G.CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NAGARAJ D, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M.S.BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR
(EARLIER ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU)
M.S.BUILDING
BENGALURU URBAN POLICE STATION
NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. SRI. S. BASKARAN
NO.453, 5TH CROSS
5
1ST MAIN ROAD
PANCHASHEELA NAGAR
MUDALAPALYA
BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1
VIDE ORDER DATED 20.12.2023;
SRI. B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R3 - SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE GOVERNEMNT ORDER NO.KOM.E.06 BHOO.DHA.SE(1)/2021
DATED 19.03.2022, ACCORDING PROSECUTION SANCTION
UNDER SECTION 19(1)(b) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION
ACT, 1988 TO PROSECUTE THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
COMPETENT COURT VIDE ANNEXURE-A, AND GOVERNMENT
ORDER NO.KOM.E.06 BHOO.DHA.SE(1)/2021 DATED 18.04.2022
REVISING THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-B,
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 04.02.2025. THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
6
CAV ORDER
The W.P.No.1169/2020 is filed by the petitioner/accused
No.2 praying this Court to quash the FIR dated 15.09.2018 in
Cr.No.22/2018 and the complaint dated 23.08.2016 registered
by respondent No.1 for the offence punishable under Section
13(1)(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for
short 'PC Act') vide Annexure- A and B respectively and to issue
a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ setting aside
the order dated 14.08.2018 passed by respondent No.2 vide
Annexure-C.
2. The W.P.No.12285/2023 is filed by the
petitioner/accused No.8 praying this Court to issue a writ, order
or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, quashing the Government Order bearing No.DPAR 218 SAS
2020 Bangalore, dated 05.07.2022 vide Annexure-A issued by
respondent No.1 and quash the FIR in Cr.No.22/2018 registered
by respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections
13(1)(c) read with 13(2) of PC Act and under Section 34, 120B
of IPC vide Annexure-B and the same is also got amended
7
praying this Court to quash the entire charge sheet filed by the
respondent police in Cr.No.22/2018 for the offences punishable
under Sections 13(1((c), 8, 12 read with Section 13(2) of PC Act
and under Sections 120B, 417, 420 and 471 read with Section
34 if IPC vide Annexure-L.
3. The W.P.No.26891/2023 is filed by the
petitioner/accused No.10 praying this Court to issue a writ, order
or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Government
Order No.KOM.E.06 BHOO.DHA.SE (1)/2021 dated 19.03.2022,
according prosecution sanction under Section 19(1)(b) of PC Act
to prosecute the petitioner before the competent Court vide
Annexure-A and Government Order No.KOM.E.06.BHOO.DHA.SE
(1)/2021 Dated 18.04.2022 revising the Order dated 19.03.2022
vide Annexure-B issued by respondent No.1 and to quash the
complaint dated 23.08.2016 and FIR in Cr.No.22/2018 of
respondent No.2 under Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2)
of PC Act and Section 120B read with Section 34 of IPC vide
Annexure-C & D.
8
4. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is
that one Sri S Bhaskaran has filed a complaint before the ACB on
23.08.2016 and now, the investigation is transferred to
respondent No.2 wherein an allegation is made that land scam
involving more than 66 acres of Government land pertaining to
Sy.No.29 of Ramanayakanahalli village, Sarjapura hobli, Anekal
taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. Based on the complaint, ACB
police have registered the FIR and statement of the complainant
was recorded on 15.09.2018. Several allegations are made in
the complaint to the extent of 74.36 acres of land and but later
on he has restricted himself to the land granted to
Ramakrishnaiah S/o Ramaiah to the extent of two acres.
Immediately after the registration of the case, sanction was
obtained from the concerned department in respect of concerned
officials and charge sheet is also filed and in all the petitions,
prayer is sought for quashing of FIR, charge sheet and sanction.
While filing charge sheet, subsequent to the investigation, both
the offences i.e., the offences punishable under Section PC Act
as well as IPC offences were invoked.
9
5. The gist of the complaint of the complainant that the
petitioner in W.P.No.1169/2020 is working as a Surveyor and
one Mr. Arvind Jadhav, Chief Secretary to the Government along
with the Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner and
Tahsildar of Anekal Taluk have misused their official powers by
creating fake land documents in respect of land bearing
Sy.No.29 of Ramanayakanahalli village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal
Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District and they caused loss amounting
to crores of rupees to the State exchequer by doing phodi and
durasthi of Government land in violation of rules and regulations.
Hence, the case has been registered at the first instance by ACB
and taken up the investigation. During the course of
investigation, when this Court found non-inclusion of other
officers who had indulged in such act, given direction to conduct
the proper investigation and hence, the other petitioners have
also arrayed as accused and after obtaining sanction, filed the
charge sheet against these petitioners.
6. The main contention for the petitioner in
W.P.No.1169/2020 is that his name was not there in the
10
complaint but falsely implicated this petitioner as an accused
based on only allegation that certain officials have misused their
official powers and created fake land documents and caused loss
to the State exchequer. The permission granted by respondent
No.2 vide Annexure-C is against the principles of natural justice
when the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing or
given any notice to the petitioner before passing the said order.
Hence, the very registration of the case against him is bad in
law. It is also contended that FIR is registered belatedly i.e., on
14.08.2018, after a lapse of more than two years of complaint.
It is also contend that on bare perusal of the complaint and FIR,
would clearly show that the allegations in the complaint does not
meet any of the ingredients of the offences as mentioned in the
provisions of the PC Act and the complaint is fake since it does
not disclose contents of specific ingredients of Section 13(1)(c)
and 13(2) of PC Act. Hence, prayed the Court to quash the FIR.
7. The counsel during his arguments would vehemently
contend that the allegation of Survey Superintendent changing
of Sy.No.29 into Sy.No.121 of Government land is not based on
11
any materials. The counsel also would vehemently contend that
this petitioner has not made any wrong while discharging his
duties. The counsel also would vehemently contend that there is
no documents to show that Sy.No.121 is a Government land.
The counsel also would vehemently contend that while giving the
sanction, not considered this fact and there are no materials to
show that there is a grant of sanction.
8. The counsel also in support of his arguments relied
upon the judgment reported in (1997) 7 SCC 622 in the case of
MANUSUKHLAL VITHALDAS CHOUHAN vs STATE OF
GUJARAT and brought to notice of this Court paragraph 17
wherein discussion was made with regard to the grant of
sanction is not an ideal formality or an acrimonious exercise but
a solemn and frivolous prosecutions. The counsel would
vehemently contend that the validity of the sanction would,
therefore, depend upon the material placed before the
sanctioning authority and the fact that all the relevant facts,
material and evidence have been considered by the sanctioning
authority. Consideration implies application of mind as observed
12
in paragraph 18 of the judgment and the order of sanction must
ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered
the evidence and other material placed before it. This fact can
also be established by extrinsic evidence by placing the relevant
material before the Court to show that all relevant facts were
considered by the sanctioning authority. The counsel also
brought to notice of this Court paragraph 19 wherein also
discussion was made with regard to the validity of sanction
depends on the application of mind by the sanctioning authority
to the facts of the case as also the material and evidence
collected during investigation, it necessarily follows that the
sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for
the generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has
to be sanctioned or not.
9. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of this
Court passed in W.P.No.200356/2021 dated 26.03.2021 and
brought to notice of this Court paragraph 18 wherein discussion
was made with regard to Section 17A casts an obligation of
application of mind on the part of the Competent Authority in
13
three situations that is no officer shall conduct any enquiry or
inquiry or investigation without previous approval and also
brought to notice of this Court paragraph 19 wherein observation
is made that it must contain the reasons, as recording of reasons
in an order is the only way that one can construe such
application of mind.
10. The learned counsel for petitioner in
W.P.No.12285/2023 would vehemently contend that this
petitioner has retired as Deputy Commissioner of Bengaluru
Urban District after serving as such for more than 4½ years and
now, for the official acts done in the year 2016, as a Deputy
Commissioner granted prior approval for conducting single
person phodi, the respondent No.1 has issued prior sanction for
prosecution of the petitioner under Section 197 of Cr.P.C for the
offences punishable under Section 109, 120B read with Section
34 of IPC on the allegation that the petitioner has colluded with
accused No.5 i.e., Tarabai Maruthi Rao Jadhav, who is the
mother of Sri Aravind Jadahv, Chief Secretary, illegally to grab
two acres of land belonging to the original grantee
14
Ramakrishnaiah S/o Ramaiah and the impugned order dated
05.07.2022 is highly illegal, arbitrary and without application of
mind. It is contended that Lokayuktha police have no
jurisdiction to conduct investigation in the matter in as much as
the original grantee Ramakrishnaiah S/o Ramaiah if at all
aggrieved, he would have challenged the phodi proceedings in
the appeal before the appellate authority and the very initiation
of proceedings by the complainant who is the third party has no
locus to file the complaint against the petitioner. If prosecution is
initiated against the Government official, on vexatious allegation,
it would definitely result in great hardship and embarrassment.
11. The counsel also in support of his arguments would
vehemently contend that there was no any grant of land and
there was no any order for conducting phodi work in favour of
Tarabai Maruthi Rao Jadhav and also not phoded in the name of
said Tarabai and only prior approval was given. The counsel
would vehemently contend that there was a reference by
Assistant Commissioner for phodi work vide reference dated
22.01.2016 and the other petitioner referred the same by
15
approving the same on 22.03.2016 and phodi was done on
16.04.2016. The counsel also would vehemently contend that
FIR was registered after two years and charge sheet was filed on
18.04.2022. This petitioner retired on 29.06.2019 and he has
been arrayed as accused after three years. The counsel also
would vehemently contend that the Government also taken the
RC report regarding the acts done by them and given clean chit
and the said report cannot be brushed aside. The counsel also
would vehemently contend that there was some lapses but no
material is placed to register criminal case and no criminality is
found. The Government land is granted and not caused any loss
to the State exchequer. The counsel also would vehemently
contend that it will not attract Section 192A of Land Reforms Act.
The counsel would vehemently contend that no sanction was
granted in respect of former Chief Secretary in whose favour
allegedly allegation is made that he got the benefit.
12. In W.P.No.26891/2023, the learned counsel for the
petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner was the
Joint Director of Land Records and working in the Survey
16
Department and served for more than 25 years with an
unblemished record. It is contended in the petition that the very
allegation in the complaint that 8.3 acres of land has been
granted to one Smt.Tarabai Maruthi Rao Jadhav, the mother of
the then Chief Secretary and others have staked claim 66 acres
of Government land in Sy.No.29 and the same is not correct. No
land in Sy.No.29 was granted to said Tarabai and entire land has
been granted to 55 persons since from 1969 to 1978. The
complainant has not verified the factual aspects while making
the allegation. It is contended that the complainant has no locus
standi to file such a bald complaint and hence, this is a clear
case of abuse of process and it is a futile exercise and hence, the
impugned order issued by respondent No.1 according
prosecution sanction to prosecute the petitioner is liable to be
quashed. There is no whisper about any corruption or
extraneous consideration against this petitioner. Even in the
impugned order dated 19.03.2022 vide Annexure-A, respondent
No.1 has not made any specific allegation as to any corruption or
extraneous consideration. The report of the Regional
17
Commissioner says that there are no lapses on the part of any of
the officials including the petitioner.
13. Admittedly, 2 acres of land in Sy.No.29 has been
granted to Ramakrishnaiah S/o Ramaiah in the year 1978 and
now phodi has been conducted and steps have been taken to
build the missing records as well as to conduct the phodi and
durasthi in the year 2013 itself and it cannot be said that phodi
now conducted. It is contended that accused No.5 - Tarabai
Maruthi Rao Jadhav, in fact, has purchased 13 acre 20 guntas of
land in the year 2002 itself from eight persons under eight
separate sale deeds. When she has purchased 13 acres 20
guntas under various sale deeds, she is entitled to get the phodi
and durasthi and same was in fact under process from 2013
itself not in the year 2016. The petitioner as a counter signing
authority, has verified the entire proposal submitted before the
Tahsildar and Assistant Commissioner and placed the records
before the Deputy Commissioner for his prior approval for
conducting phodi and after his approval, phodi has been
conducted. If any person aggrieved, they can file an appeal and
18
respondent No.1 while issuing the impugned order has not
applied his mind while giving the sanction. The counsel for the
petitioner in his argument would vehemently contend that
Annexure-A and B are in favour of the petitioner and original
owner has not raised any objection. The counsel also would
vehemently contend that while giving the sanction, not applied
his mind.
14. The counsel in support of his arguments referred
several judgments and vehemently contend that it is nothing but
an abuse of process. Though he relied upon several judgments,
mainly relies upon the judgment reported in (2020) 9 SCC 363
in the case of ASHOO SURENDRANATH TEWARI vs DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, EOW, CBI AND ANOTHER
and referring this judgment the counsel would vehemently
contend that criminal prosecution on same set of facts and
circumstances, cannot be allowed to continue, on underlying
principle of higher standard of proof in criminal cases, no
sanction ought to be accorded and no offence under IPC made
out. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court the
19
discussion made in paragraphs 8 and 12 of the judgment
wherein several judgments are discussed and therefore, the
yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the
adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for
prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person
concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it
is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions
of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person
concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the Court.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied
upon the judgment reported in (1999) 7 SCC 409 in the case of
ZUNJARRAO BHIKAJI NAGARKAR vs UNION OF INDIA
AND OTHERS and brought to notice of this Court paragraph 41
wherein discussion was made with regard to the record in the
present case does not show if the disciplinary authority had any
information within its possession from where it could form an
opinion that the appellant showed "favour" to the assessee by
not imposing the penalty. He may have wrongly exercised his
jurisdiction. But that wrong can be corrected in appeal. That
20
cannot always form a basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings
against an officer while he is acting as a quasi-judicial authority.
It must be kept in mind that being a quasi-judicial authority, he
is always subject to judicial supervision in appeal. The counsel
also brought to notice of this Court paragraph 43 wherein an
observation is made that if every error or law were to constitute
a charge of misconduct, it would impinge upon the independent
functioning of quasi-judicial officers like the appellant. Since in
sum and substance misconduct is sought to be inferred by the
appellant having committed an error of law, the charge-sheet on
the face of it does not proceed on any legal premise rendering it
liable to be quashed. The charge-sheet, if sustained, will thus
impinge upon the confidence and independent functioning of a
quasi-judicial authority.
16. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of this
Court passed in Crl.P.No.7373/2020 c/w
W.P.No.11408/2020 decided on 08.03.2021 and brought to
notice of this Court paragraph 8 wherein an observation is made
with regard to locus-standi and no specific allegation against
21
these petitioners also when they have undertaken the work in
view of the contract between the owner and the developer and
false allegation is also made against the Village Accountant and
exercised the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
17. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the
Apex Court reported in (1989) 1 SCC 321 in the case of STATE
OF PUNJAB vs KAILASH NATH and the counsel brought to
notice of this Court paragraph 21 wherein discussion was made
with regard to the first information report in this case was lodged
on August 27, 1985, that is, after about six years of the accrual
of the cause of action or taking place of the events which took
place in 1979 and after about three years even from 31.10.1982
when the respondent retired from service. The counsel referring
this judgment would vehemently contend that the petitioner was
retired in the year 2019 itself and proceedings initiated against
him after three years.
18. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of this
Court reported in LAWS(KAR)-2019-12-238 decided on
19.12.2019 in the case of S V NANDARAJU vs KARNATAKA
22
LOKAYUKTHA POLICE and brought to notice of this Court
paragraph 21 wherein also judgment of KAILASH NATH
referred supra was referred wherein discussed with regard to the
delay in initiating the proceedings.
19. Per contra, the counsel for the Lokayuktha would
vehemently contend that this Court cannot look into the material
on record in a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C when
the said materials are considered while giving permission to
proceed against the petitioner in W.P.No.1169/2020. The
counsel also brought to notice of this Court Annexure-C wherein
sanction was given in favour of the petitioners along with other
officials of the very same department of survey and specific
consideration was made that when the property belongs to one
Ramakrishnaiah s/o Ramaiah which was allotted in his favour in
Sy.No.29, instead of Sy.No.29, Government land of Sy.No.121
was shown as Sy.No.29 and forwarded the same confirming in
the name of original allottee and signed the Aakarband and
phodi sketch, thereby misused the official powers. Annexure-C is
very specific regarding misusing of their official powers. In the
23
complaint also specific allegations are made and same was not
controverted and hence, this Court cannot go into the evidence
while considering the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
20. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court the
statement of objections filed wherein also specifically reiterated
with regard to misusing of powers by these petitioners while and
taken note of material available on record and involvement of
these petitioners is evident from the reading of sanction order
which reflects that one of these petitioner has signed the
Aakarband register and phodi sketch in the absence of any
application given by the applicant and only based on the entry
found in the pahani, phodi work was commenced and hence, this
is a clear case of misusing of official powers.
21. The counsel for the respondent in respect of
W.P.No.12285/2023 would vehemently contend that statement
of objections is filed and brought to notice of this Court
Annexure-R1 to R3 that is copy of complaint, copy of the charge
sheet and copy of the additional charge sheet and also brought
to notice of this Court that the petitioner in this petition was
24
worked as Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District at the
time of filing of complaint. The counsel also brought to notice of
this Court paragraph 8 of the objection statement wherein it is
contend that land in Sy.No.29 measuring 2 acres was granted to
one Ramakrishnaiah S/o Ramaiah in the year 1978 but a
fictitious person who claims to be in the same name
Ramakrishnaiah S/o Basappa sold the property in favour of
Tarabai who is arrayed as accused No.5 and she is the mother of
then Chief Secretary. It is also contend that original grantee
filed an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964 and the same was allowed wherein also
Tahsildar, Anekal and Tarabai and the Ramakrishnaiah S/o
Basappa were the parties and the said order also challenged.
The very order was challenged and Assistant Commissioner
passed an order stating that based on the thumb impression and
age on the voter ID does not match with Ramakrishnaiah S/o
Ramaiah, the original grantee and set aside the order dated
20.07.2011 passed by the Tahsildar and said Ramakrishnaiah
S/o Basappa was not holding any title.
25
22. It is also contend that Tarabai - accused No.5 and
Ramakrsihanaiah S/o Basappa have filed revision petition
bearing No.114/2010-11 before the Special Deputy
Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District and the Special Deputy
Commissioner justified the order of the Assistant Commissioner
order dated 30.04.2010 and dismissed the revision petition on
20.07.2011. In the meanwhile, Government issued a circular on
23.11.2010. As per the circular, the Deputy Commissioners are
empowered to grant prior approval for conducting single person
phodi and said phodi has been conducted in respect of the land
belongs to Ramakrishnaiah S/o Ramaiah, nevertheless, in
respect of Ramakrishnaiah S/o Basappa @ Ramaiah. The
petitioner accorded the sanction to conduct single person phodi
process in favour of Tarabai - accused No.5 and the same is in
violation of procedure laid down by the survey department and
allotted new Sy.No.121 against the old Sy.No.29/P36 to the
extent of two acres in which 1.26 acres belongs to the
Government and 0.14 acres belongs to the original grantee
Ramakrishnaiah S/o Ramaiah. It is also contend that accused
No.6 is a Personal Secretary of Chief Secretary-Aravinda Jadhav-
26
accused No.9 and applied for phodi durasti on behalf of Tara Bai
- accused No.5 and petitioner in respect of said application,
knowingly well that the applicant is nowhere connected to the
property in question, accorded the sanction and this petitioner in
conspiracy with other accused, allowed the application and
committed misconduct of his official duty. But, similarly situated
application were rejected by the petitioner and remanded to the
concerned applicant to attach the necessary documents for grant
of single durasti phodi. However, with an intention of illegal gain
to accused No.5, allowed the application and hence, found
misuse of his official position without returning the single phodi
proposal to Tahsildar and accused No.5 conspired with all of
them with an intention to make illegal profit to her and the
petitioner instigated accused No.5 to make illegal profit by land
illegally grabbing of two acres in Sy.No.29/P36 and said fact has
been considered by passing an order of sanction and hence, the
question of interfering does not arise.
23. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the
Apex Court reported in AIR 2012 SC 1185 in the case of DR.
27
SUBRAMANAAN SWAMY vs DR. MANMOHAN SINGH AND
ANOTHER and in paragraph 81 an observation is made that all
proposals for sanction placed before any sanctioning authority,
empowered to grant sanction for the prosecution of a public
servant under Section 19 of the PC Act must be decided within a
period of three months of the receipt of the proposal by the
concerned authority.
24. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the
Apex Court reported in (2020) 17 SCC 664 in the case of
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND OTHERS vs
PRAMILA VIRENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL AND ANOTHER
wherein the Apex Court held that the absence of sanction no
doubt can be agitated at the threshold, but the invalidity of the
sanction is to be raised during the trial. In the instant facts,
admittedly there is a sanction though the accused seek to pick
holes in the manner the sanction has been granted and to claim
that the same is defective which is a matter to be considered at
the time of trial.
28
25. The counsel for the respondent also in respect of
W.P.No.26891/2023 concerned, would vehemently contend that
the respondent having considered the material on record
particularly the involvement of this petitioner in a work of phodi,
taken note of in Annexure-A and sanction was given wherein
detail discussion was made and also Annexure-C discloses the
allegation with regard to the misusing of powers and FIR also
registered taking note of the act done by this petitioner and the
same is narrated in Annexure-A. The counsel brought to notice
of this Court the discussion made in the sanction order and
creation of document in the name of Ramakrishnaiah S/o
Basappa @ Ramaiah based on the sale deed and katha was also
not based on the material and an observation is made that for
phodi is concerned in respect of Ramakrsihaiah S/o Ramaiah is
in accordance with law but based on the bogus document of
Ramakrishnaiah S/o Basappa, sale deed was created in favour of
Tarabai - accused No.5 and the order was also challenged before
the authorities for making the document in favour of
Ramakrishnaiah S/o Basappa and same was set aside but lapses
are found in creation of document for the phodi work and this
29
petitioner put up the file for phodi work and he was supervising
the darkast phodi and the order dated 21.03.2016 is against the
circular dated 23.11.2010 and he did not supervise the work
properly and lapses were found and recommended the file for
phodi work and hence, sanction was given and details are
mentioned in the sanction order and thus, cannot challenge the
sanction order and the same can be considered only on merits.
26. The counsel in support of his arguments relied upon
the judgment reported in (2020) 3 SCC 317 in the case of
RAJEEV KOURAV vs BAISAHAB AND OTHERS and brought to
notice of this Court paragraph 8 wherein discussion was made
with regard to the scope of revision under Section 482 of Cr.P.C
to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made
in the FIR or the charge sheet constitutes the ingredients of the
offences alleged. Interference by the High Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C is to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is settled law that the
evidence produced by the accused in is defence cannot be looked
into by the Court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at
30
the initial stage of the criminal proceedings. It is trite law that
the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence
while considering the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for
quashing criminal proceedings. It is clear from the law laid down
in this judgment that if prima facie case is made out disclosing
the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the
Court cannot quash the criminal proceedings.
27. The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported
in (2020) 17 SCC 664 in the case of CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION AND OTHERS vs PRAMILA VIRENDRA
KUMAR AGARWAL AND ANOTHER and brought to notice of
this Court paragraph 11 wherein also discussion was made with
regard to validity of the sanction for prosecution could have been
considered only during trial since essentially the conclusion
reached by the high Court is with regard to the defective
sanction since according to the High Court, the procedure of
providing opportunity for explanation was not followed which will
result in the sanction being defective. The decision in DINESH
KUMAR vs AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA reported in
31
(2012) 1 SCC 532 also discussed wherein it is held that there is
a distinction between the absence of sanction and the alleged
invalidity on account of non-application of mind. The absence of
sanction no doubt can be agitated at the threshold but the
invalidity of the sanction is to be raised during the trial.
28. The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported
in 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 923 in the case of CENTRAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI) AND ANOTHER vs
THOMMANDRU HANNAH VIJAYALAKSHMI ALIAS T H
VIJAYALAKSHMI AND ANOTHER and brought to notice of this
Court the discussion made in paragraph 51 wherein also held
that while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution to adjudicate on a petition seeking the quashing of
an FIR, the High Court should have only considered whether the
contents of the FIR as they stand and on their face prima facie
make out a cognizable offence.
29. The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported
in (2023) 6 SCC 559 in the case of STATE OF
CHHATTISGARH AND ANOTHER vs AMAN KUMAR SINGH
32
AND OTHERS and brought to notice of this Court paragraph 79
wherein also discussion was made that what is of substantial
importance is that if criminal prosecution is based upon adequate
evidence and the same is otherwise justifiable, it does not
become vitiated on account of significant political overtones and
mala fide motives and also an observation is made that
launching of prosecution against such an accused but he is
allowed to go scot-free, despite there being materials against
him, merely on the ground that the action initiated by the
current regime is mala fide in the sense that it is either to settle
scores with the earlier regime or to wreak vengeance against the
individual, in such an eventuality they are constrained to observe
that it is an criminal justice that would be the casualty. It would
all depend on what is ultimately unearthed after the
investigation is complete. Needless to observe, the first
information report in a disproportionate assets case must, as of
necessity, prima facie, contain ingredients for the perception
that there is fair enough reason to suspect commission of a
cognizable offence relating to "criminal misconduct" punishable
under the PC Act and to embark upon an investigation.
33
30. The counsel also relied upon the recent judgment of
the Apex Court reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 49 in the
case of STATE OF PUNJAB vs HARI KESH and brought to
notice of this Court paragraph 8 wherein also held that it is
pertinent to note that whether the sanction has been granted by
the competent authority or not, would be a matter of evidence.
Further, as per the explanation to sub-section (4), for the
purpose of Section 19, error includes "competency of the
authority to grant sanction." Therefore, in view of the settled
legal position, the High Court should not have quashed the
sanction order and the consequent proceedings, unless it was
satisfied that the failure of justice had occurred by such error or
irregularity or invalidity.
31. The counsel appearing for the State would
vehemently contend that the document placed before the Court
is very clear with regard to the sanction order placed before the
Court and reasoned order has been passed and hence, matter
requires trial. The counsel also would vehemently contend that
statement of objections is also filed wherein also specific
34
contention was taken with regard to invoking of Section 197 of
Cr.P.C and also brought to notice of this Court paragraph 8 of
the sanction order dated 05.07.2022 which reads as follows:
"8. Allegations against V.Shankar, IAS (Retd), the
then Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, A8
accused in the case (at the time of occurrence of the act:-
has despite knowing that in the proposal submitted by A11
Accused, Tahasildar, Anekal Taluk and A7-Accused, the A5-
Accused has not rights prertaining to the land to an extent of 2
acres in Sy.No.29/P36, Ramanayakanahalli village, without
returning back the said proposal for re-consideration to the
Tahasildar, Anekal Taluk and A7-Accused, in order to facilitate
the A5 Accused has misused his powers under Section -
13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. Further, on 21.03.2016
has ordered to take steps of darkhast podi durasti under single
person request and it is the clear violation of Government Order
No.Kam.E/283/BhuDaSa/2010, dated 23.11.2010 and has
colluded to conspire a plot with A5 Accused with an common
intention/motive to make illegal profit to the A5-Accused and
instigated the attempt made by A5-Accused to make illegal
profit by illegally grabbing the 2 acres of land in Sy.No.29/P36
belonging to Sri Ramakrishnaiah S/o Ramaiah, the original
allottee and to the Government, thereby has committee an
offence under Section 15 of PC Act, 1988 and Section 109,
120(b) read with 34 of IPC and has attempted to cause loss to
Sri Ramakrishnaiah, the original allottee and to the
Government, which has been confirmed that comprehensively
committed the punishable offence u/s.15, 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d)
read with 13(2) of PC Act, 1988 and Section 109, 120(b) read
with 34 of IPC."
35
32. Having brought to notice of this Court paragraph 8 of
the sanction order referred above, the counsel contends that
Government accorded sanction having considered the material
on record. The counsel also contend that in a case of STATE OF
KARNATAKA vs AMMERJAN reported in (2007) 11 SCC 273
the Apex Court categorically held that ordinarily, before passing
an order of sanction, the entire records containing the materials
collected against the accused should be placed before the
sanctioning authority. In the event, the order of sanction does
not indicate application of mind as to the materials placed before
the said authority before the order of sanction was passed, the
same may be produced before the court to show that such
materials had in fact been produced.
33. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court the
judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2014) 11 SCC 431 in
the case of P L TATWAL vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
and brought to notice of this Court paragraph 12 wherein also
the Apex Court held that grant of sanction is only an
administrative function. It is intended to protect public servants
36
against frivolous and vexatious litigation. It also ensures that a
dishonest officer is brought before law and is tried in accordance
with law. Thus, it is a serious exercise of power by the
competent authority. It has to be apprised of all the relevant
materials, and on such materials, the authority has to take a
conscious decision as to whether the facts would reveal the
commission of an offence under the relevant provisions.
34. The counsel referring these judgments would
vehemently contend that before granting sanction, all the
materials have been considered and passed the detailed order
which has been referred above in paragraph 9 of the objection
statement and hence, it does not requires any interference by
this Court by exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
35. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record
and considering the principles laid down in the judgments
referred supra, the points that would arise for consideration of
this Court are:
37
1. Whether the petitioners have made out a
ground to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C to
quash the proceedings initiated against them
and no valid sanction?
2. What order?
Point No.1:
36. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record,
it discloses that the petitioner in W.P.No.1169/2020, is working
in the survey department but his contention that he has not
made any wrong and but there is no document to show that
Sy.No.121 is a government land and while granting sanction, the
said fact is not considered and there is no material to grant
sanction. The counsel also in support of his arguments, relied
upon the two judgments i.e., MANUSUKHLAL VITHALDAS
CHAUHAN and PRAVEEN KUMAR MEGHEKAR referred supra
and contends that no such material is found to grant sanction.
38
37. Having perused the material on record in respect of
this petitioner is concerned, this Court has to take note of the
allegations made in the complaint. No doubt, the name of this
petitioner not found in the complaint and over all allegation is
made with regard to the misusing of power in the complaint in
terms of Annexure-B and consequent upon the complaint, case
has been registered by issuing FIR in terms of Annexure-A. In
paragraph 2 of the complaint brought to the attention of the
Court that phodi work proceeding was taken place at the behest
of Chief Secretary Aravind Jhadav since properties are purchased
in the name of his mother and particularly, phodi work was
started based on the RTC of Sy.No.29 of Ramanayakanahalli
village. Admittedly, the portion of property bearing Sy.No.29
belongs to one Ramakrishnaiah S/o Ramaiah. But document was
created in the name of Ramakrishnaiah S/o Basappa @ Ramaiah
and the said sale deed was executed by him in favour of the
mother of the Chief Secretary and also allegation is that without
a valid phodi and in violation of the same, processed the same.
Admittedly, this petitioner was working in survey department is
not in dispute and he processed the paper also not in dispute
39
and also he did not dispute the fact that he had prepared the
Aakarbank and also sketch and allegation is that same is in
violation of rules, regulations and guidelines set by the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The petitioner not disputes his
signature on the same. Only contention that he did not change
the survey number as 121 Government land in respect of
Sy.No.29. But on perusal of Annexure-C - sanction order, it is
very clear that the documents are created and original grantee
Ramakrishnaiah S/o Ramaiah has not given any application for
phodi work and allegation against this petitioner is that he has
misused his power and phodi paper was processed without any
application and also he had signed the Aakarband register and
phodi sketch and petitioner did not disputes the same that he
had not done the job.
38. Admittedly, there was no any application by
Ramakrishaiah @ Ramaiah who is the original grantee but
documents are created at the instance of accused No.5 i.e.,
mother of the Chief Secretary since she claims that she
purchased the property from one Ramakrishnaiah S/o Basappa
40
and she was also a party to the revenue proceedings and both
Assistant Commissioner as well as Deputy Commissioner
confirmed the order canceling the entry made in favour of
fictitious person Ramakrishnaiah S/o Basappa @ Ramaiah and
process was made in the said name hence, taken note of the
same and sanction was given. In page No.3 of the sanction order
specific allegations are made regarding creation of document and
also creation of phodi work in the name of the mother of the
Chief Secretary based on the sale deed executed by
Ramakrishnaiah S/o Basappa @ Ramaiah who was not the
original grantee and original grantee is only Ramakrishnaiah S/o
Ramaiah, not the son of Basappa. Specific allegations are made
that the petitioners are indulged in creation of document and
processing of phodi in violation of Government Order without
looking into the documents. It is very clear that this petitioner
was working in the survey department and he only processed
the papers without looking into the material on record and even
in the absence of any application from the original grantee,
phodi process was made and no application from accused No.5
41
also. Hence, the very contention that there is no material for
sanction, cannot be accepted.
39. No doubt, the counsel for the petitioner brought to
notice of this Court that the new number was given as 121 and
old number is 29 and same is in the name of original grantee
Ramakrishnaiah S/o Ramaiah. But the fact that the papers are
processed in the name of Ramakrishnaiah S/o Basappa @
Ramaiah is also not in dispute. Hence, the very contention of the
petitioner cannot be accepted. The judgments which have been
relied upon by the petitioner counsel in MANUSUKHLAL
VITHALDAS CHAUHANl and also the judgment of this Court in
W.P.No.200356/2021 referred supra will not comes to the aid
of this petitioner and validity of the sanction would therefore
depend upon the material placed before the sanctioning
authority as observed in paragraphs 17 and 18 and discussion
made in paragraph 19 also will not comes to the aid of the
counsel for the petitioner which he had referred.
40. The issue with regard to the fact that there are
materials and the said materials have to be looked into at the
42
time of considering the matter on merits and without conducting
the trial, all these disputed questions cannot be decided and
defence of the petitioner cannot be decided in a petition filed
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
41. In the W.P.No.12285/2023, relief is sought for
quashing of sanction and the counsel for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that there is no any material but there was
some mistake and mistake should not lead to initiation of
criminal prosecution against the petitioner and the same is
objected by the State by filing detailed statement of objection
and brought to notice of this Court, paragraph 9 objection
statement and extracting of paragraph 8 of sanction order.
Having perused paragraph 6 of the sanction order, it is stated
that Ramakrishnaiah S/o Ramaiah is the original grantee was in
possession of two acres of land in Sy.No.29/P36, later on he
entered into a sale agreement with T V Babu S/o late Venkata
Swamy and he was in possession of the property and also in
paragraph 7, taken note of the fact that the accused No.5
initiated an action for phodi work for two acres of land in respect
43
of the said land thereby giving new survey number as 121 in
order to cause illegal loss to Ramakrishnaiah S/o Ramaiah, the
original allottee and for the attempt made to make illegal profit
by illegally grabbing the said land by accused No.5 since
indulged in creation of documents in the name of
Ramakrishnaiah S/o Basappa who is not the original grantee and
in sanction order also in paragraph 8 which have extracted
above while referring statement of objections filed by the State,
it is very clear that this petitioner without looking into the
documents that is accused No.5 has not given any application for
phodi work who is none other than the mother of then Chief
Secretary without returning back the proposal for
reconsideration to Tahsildar, proceeded to pass an order for prior
approval of the phodi work. Hence, it is very clear that misused
his powers in order to facilitate accused No.5. First of all,
accused No.5 has not given any application and other accused
that is accused No.6 who is working as PA to accused No.9 who
is the Chief Secretary on behalf of accused No.5 had given an
application and papers are also processed in favour of mother of
the Chief Secretary and thereby misused the power and also
44
with an common intention to make illegal profit, process was
made. It is important to note that within a span of three months,
the process was made and completed the phodi work and there
is no material of processing the phodi work within three months
in any other cases.
42. It is also important to note that reference was made
for phodi work is concerned in the name of the mother of the
Chief Secretary. The counsel for the petitioner made an attempt
to conceal the said fact before the Court while arguing the
matter. When this Court pointed out the same, there was no
any answer from the mouth of the petitioner counsel that all
paper process was made at the behest of accused No.5 who is
none other than the mother of Chief Secretary and all these
materials were taken note of in respect of Sy.No.29/P36 one
belongs to Ramakrishnaiah S/o Ramaiah the original allotee and
he had not given any application for phodi work is concerned.
Only at the instance of one fictitious person i.e., Ramakrishnaiah
S/o Basappa @ Ramaiah, sale deed was created in favour of
accused No.5 that is the mother of the Chief Secretary and made
45
an attempt to create the documents not only sale deed as well
as based on the said created sale deed, phodi work was taken up
in the absence of any application by accused No.5 and Chief
Secretary also has been arrayed as accused and taken note of
the said facts into consideration in paragraph 8 of the sanction
order. The very contention that may be some mistake and same
cannot be a ground to initiate criminal proceedings cannot be
accepted when the material placed before the Court collected by
the Investigating Officer is sufficient and sanctioning authority
has also applied its mind before giving the sanction and may be
he was a former Deputy Commissioner and he is retired from the
job and it is settled law that even after four years of retirement,
the criminal proceedings can be initiated. In the case on hand,
he was retired in 2019 and sanction was given in 2022 i.e.,
within a period of four years and also there is no bar to initiate
criminal proceedings and same is settled law that criminal
proceedings can be initiated in a case of misuse of powers by the
officials during their service when they discharged their public
duty.
46
43. In W.P.No.26891/2023 also relief is sought to issue
writ or order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the
sanction order dated 19.03.2022 and also quash the complaint
and charge sheet. The main contention also that this petitioner
has not indulged in such act of misusing of official powers and
also contend that the allegation made in complaint is with regard
to 8.3 acres of land has been granted to Tarabai who is the
mother of the then Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka
but no such grant in fact she had purchased the properties from
the allottees. It is contended that on 14.01.2016, the case
worker working in the office of the petitioner has submitted the
proposal of the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Taluk
regarding phodi work in respect of the lands. Based on the
available records as per the proposal submitted by the Assistant
Commissioner, the petitioner has placed the file for prior
approval of the Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-H and
prior approval was given and hence, he did not commit any error
in placing the same for approval.
47
44. The contention of the counsel for the
respondent/State that when the proposal was prepared by this
petitioner being the supervisory jurisdiction which he is
exercising, did not look into the records. First of all, there is no
any application by the original allottee for phodi work and phodi
file is also put up at the instructions of the then Chief Secretary
that too through his PA and even the mother of the Chief
Secretary was also not filed any application for phodi work. The
fact that the other reference is with regard to Ramakrishnaiah
S/o Basappa and he is not the original grantee and sale deed is
created in the name of Ramakrishnaiah S/o Basappa making the
father name as alias Ramaiah but original grantee is
Ramakrishnaiah S/o Ramaiah and the mother of the Chief
Secretary had purchased the property from the person who is
not the original allottee and sought for phodi work and to the
extent of two acres belongs to Ramakrishnaiah S/o Ramaiah
process was made to the phodi work when he did not give any
application for phodi.
48
45. It is also important to note that phodi work was done
within a span of three months and the same is a classic example
how phodi work was done without an application either by the
mother of the Chief Secretary or by the original grantee i.e.,
Ramakirshnaiah S/o Ramaiah. Only based on the RTC khatha
reference of the mother of the Chief Secretary, paper was
processed and Assistant Commissioner reference was made on
22.01.2016 and Deputy Commissioner given the prior approval
immediately without looking into the documents and from all the
office of Revenue department and Survey department and office
of Deputy Commissioner worked at the behest of its then Chief
Secretary without any material and within a span of three
months, phodi work was done and same is a history in the
Revenue department making of phodi within a period of three
months and it appears to be this is the one phodi work which
was done in the entire State within a span of three months only
on the guise that the mother of the Chief Secretary had
purchased the property but not from the original allottee and
also indulged in creation of documents in the name of a fictitious
person Ramakrishnaiah S/o Basappa who is not a original
49
grantee. Having taken note of these material on record, it
discloses that it is a clear case of misusing of official power by
the accused persons particularly these petitioners who are
working in the Survey department from the bottom of the post
as verifier of the records that is petitioner in W.P.No.1169/2020
and the petitioner in W.P.No.26891/2023 is the person who is
having supervisory jurisdiction in the survey department sent
the file to the Deputy Commissioner and he had sent the same
without looking into the records and also the petitioner in
W.P.No.12285/2023 former Deputy Commissioner given prior
approval without looking into the documents and documents
were also not in order and in other cases, he had returned the
file for resubmit the same. But in this case, in the absence of
documents which are not in order, given the prior approval to do
the phodi work. Hence, it is clear violation of rules and
regulations and the work was done by misusing the powers.
46. In the sanction order in respect of the petitioner in
W.P.No.26891/2023 is concerned, detail order was passed by
the Government while passing an order of sanction dated
50
19.03.2022 wherein specific reasons are given that when the
reference was given to this petitioner in the single person phodi
work is concerned on 21.03.2016, without verification, passed
an order as against the order dated 23.11.2010 and hence, it is
clear violation of said order of the Government and he did not
pursue the matter as a supervisory jurisdiction of the Survey
department and during the course of investigation, collected the
material and invoked Section 19(1) (b) of the PC Act to grant the
sanction and hence, the very contention that the said sanction is
not valid cannot be accepted at this stage that too invoking
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The counsel for the petitioner referring
the judgment of ASHOO SURENDRANATH TIWARI referred
supra contend that there cannot be a two proceedings such as
criminal proceedings as well as departmental enquiry. Admittedly
in this case, no such departmental enquiry is conducted and only
contend that RC report was submitted and the same cannot be
brushed aside. But the fact that RC report was collected by the
then Chief Secretary and RC was working under the then Chief
Secretary and HENCE, Court cannot expect that that is a
impartial report and hence, judgment of ASHOO
51
SURENDRANATH TIWARI referred supra is not applicable to
the facts of the case on hand since there is no adjudicative
proceedings was held and no departmental enquiry was
conducted. In the said judgment, in paragraph 8, it is held that
being based on the preponderance of probabilities is somewhat
lower than the standard of proof in a criminal proceedings where
the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. But in the
case on hand, there was no any departmental enquiry and only
report was collected through RC and same is not a standard of
proof in a departmental proceedings, hence, this judgment is not
applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
47. No doubt, the counsel also relied upon the judgment
of ZUNJARRAO BHIKAJI NAGARKAR's case referred supra
and brought to notice of this Court paragraph 41 wherein also
discussion made that the record in the present case does not
show if the disciplinary authority had any information within its
possession from where it could form an opinion that the
appellant showed 'favour' to the assessee by not imposing the
penalty and he may have wrongly exercised his jurisdiction. But
52
that wrong can be corrected in appeal. But in the case on hand,
no such circumstances. In the case on hand, there is an
allegation of misusing of the public office for favouring the Chief
Secretary who has been arrayed as accused No.9 and his mother
has been arrayed as accused No.5 and no application for phodi
by her but work was done.
48. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of
KAILASH NATH's case referred supra and same is also not
applicable to the facts of the case on hand. But it is very clear in
the said judgment there was a delay in initiating the proceedings
after long period of six years. But in the case on hand, at the
time of registration of the case in 2018, this petitioner was
working as Deputy Commissioner and he was retired in 2019 but
sanction was given within a period of three years and not after
four years and that too law is settled that even criminal
proceedings can be initiated even after four years also.
49. On the other hand, the judgment relied upon by the
counsel for the Special Lokayuktha is very clear in a case of
THOMMANDRU HANNAH VIJAYALAKSHMI referred supra
53
that while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution to adjudicate on a petition seeking the quashing of
an the FIR - as they stand and on their face- prima facie make
out a cognizable offence. Having considered this judgment, it is
very clear that the observation is made that Single JUDGE has
conducted a mini-trial, overlooking binding principles which
govern a plea for quashing an FIR and hence, the said judgment
is applicable to the facts of the case and scope of revision under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C is very limited.
50. In the case of PRAMILA VIRENDRA KUMAR
AGARWAL referred supra, in paragraph 11 the Apex Court held
that validity of the sanction for prosecution could have been
considered only during trial since essentially the conclusion
reached by the high Court is with regard to the defective
sanction since according to the High Court, the procedure of
providing opportunity for explanation was not followed which will
result in the sanction being defective. In the case on hand, no
dispute that there is a sanction in favour of accused persons and
whether the same is valid or not can be considered during the
54
course of trial. The very contention that this Court can exercise
the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C with regard to
validity of the same cannot be accepted. In the case of RAJEEV
KOURAV referred supra, in paragraph 8 discussion was made
with regard to the scope of revision under Section 482 of Cr.P.C
to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made
in the FIR or the charge sheet constitutes the ingredients of the
offences alleged. Interference by the High Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C is to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is settled law that the
evidence produced by the accused in is defence cannot be looked
into by the Court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at
the initial stage of the criminal proceedings. It is trite law that
the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence
while considering the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for
quashing criminal proceedings. It is clear from the law laid down
in this judgment that if prima facie case is made out disclosing
the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the
Court cannot quash the criminal proceedings. This judgment is
aptly applicable to the case on hand since several materials are
55
collected by the IO during the course of investigation and
sanction is also granted.
51. In the case of AMAN KUMAR SINGH referred
supra, the Apex Court discussed in detail with regard to the
scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C and in paragraph 79, it is held
that what is of substantial importance is that if criminal
prosecution is based upon adequate evidence and the same is
otherwise justifiable, it does not become vitiated on account of
significant political overtones and mala fide motives and also an
observation is made that launching of prosecution against such
an accused but he is allowed to go scot-free, despite there being
materials against him, merely on the ground that the action
initiated by the current regime is mala fide in the sense that it is
either to settle scores with the earlier regime or to wreak
vengeance against the individual, in such an eventuality they are
constrained to observe that it is an criminal justice that would be
the casualty. It would all depend on what is ultimately unearthed
after the investigation is complete. Needless to observe, the
first information report in a disproportionate assets case must,
56
as of necessity, prima facie, contain ingredients for the
perception that there is fair enough reason to suspect
commission of a cognizable offence relating to "criminal
misconduct" punishable under the PC Act and to embark upon an
investigation. In the case on hand also several materials are
collected by the IO during the course of investigation.
52. In the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of HARI KESH referred supra, it is also held that the settled
legal position that the High Court should not have quashed the
Sanction order and the consequent proceedings, unless it was
satisfied that the failure of justice had occurred by such error or
irregularity or invalidity as referred in paragraph 8. The
judgments which have been relied upon by the counsel for the
respondent are aptly applicable to the case on hand. At this
juncture, the High Court cannot embark upon considering the
validity of the sanction when the sanction is given to prosecute
the same considering the material on record and validity of the
same has to be considered during the trial not at the stage of
considering the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and
57
only Section 482 of Cr.P.C could be exercised if it is in abuse of
process and initiating criminal proceeding without any material
and voluminous materials placed before the Court which were
collected by the IO and hence, it is very clear that it is a clear
case of misconduct of the Government officials who have
discharged their duties and in discharging their duties, they have
indulged in creation of document and processing the papers not
in accordance with law and same is also in violation of
Government order, rules and regulations. Hence, I do not find
any grounds to quash the proceedings initiated against the
petitioners as sought in the respective petitions including the
sanction order. Hence, I answer the above point as negative.
Point No.2:
53. In view of discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P. SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN