Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 156 (KAR)

Ramamurthy B. v. Anti Corruption Bureau

2022-02-07

K.NATARAJAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner herein filed this petitioner under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the order passed by the 23rd Additional City Civil Sessions Judge and special Judge (PC Act) Bengaluru in Crime No.9/2021 dtd. 8/11/2020 for having rejecting the 'B' Final Report of the Investigating Officer. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.2 filed a complaint before Additional Director General of Police, Bengaluru on 19/11/2020 based upon his information one Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thammaiah registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No.9/2021 on 5/2/2021 against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sec. 7(a), 13 (1)(a), 12 read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred as "PC Act" in short) alleging that this petitioner said to be working as Police Inspector in Indiranagar Police Station, Bengaluru has demanded Rs.10.00 lakhs as undue advantage from the accused No.2 for filing B Final report in Crime No.91/2020 registered against accused No.2 in the said police station. It is further alleged that the accused no.2 said to have paid Rs.2,95,000.00to this petitioner by a cheque which was used for making payment in favour of East Cultural Association Club, Indiranagar (in short "ECA") for obtaining a membership and Rs.7.05 lakhs paid by cash. After registering the case and investigating the matter the Investigation Officer has come to the conclusion stating that no such amount has been received by this petitioner and there is no material evidence against him, therefore, he has filed B Final Report before the Special Court. Subsequently, the Special Court issued notice to the respondent No.2 the informant/the defacto complainant and he has appeared through the counsel and filed no objection to accept the 'B' Final report. Special Court instead of accepting the B Final report rejected the same and directed the Investigation Officer for placing the order before the competant authority for seeking sanction under Sec. 19 of PC Act in order to take the cognizance and to issue process under Sec. 204 of Cr.P.C which is under challenge. 4. Special Court instead of accepting the B Final report rejected the same and directed the Investigation Officer for placing the order before the competant authority for seeking sanction under Sec. 19 of PC Act in order to take the cognizance and to issue process under Sec. 204 of Cr.P.C which is under challenge. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously contended that the Investigation Officer after thorough investigation has filed B Final report stating that there is no material evidence against the petitioner to file the charge sheet and he has collected various documents but no such document available to file the charge sheet and he has examined so many witnesses none of them were given statement against the accused for filing the charge sheet. Such being the case and when there is no material to frame the charge and no ground to proceed against the petitioner the order of the Trial Court is not sustainable and further contended the complainant also appeared before the court and stated no objection to accept the 'B' Final report and he has not filed any protest petition and led any sworn statement and also not produced any additional document in order to take the cognizance by the Special Judge. When such being the case rejecting the 'B' Final report is not correct. It is further contended that when the Special Court directed the Investigation Officer to seek sanction from the competent authority directing the Investigation Officer to produce the order of the Special Court which is nothing but issuing direction by the Trial Court to the competent authority compelling them to give the sanction which is not correct. The sanction authority shall independently verify the documents and accord the sanction only on the materials collected by the Investigation Officer during the investigation. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court is not sustainable under the law. Hence prayed for quashing the impugned order. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 appeared through the video conference and submitted when the Investigation Officer already filed B Final Report stating that there is no material on record compelling the Investigation Officer to place the order of the Trial Court before the competent authority is not correct. In fact, the competent authority shall analyze the documents which was collected by the Investigation Officer and to accord the sanction. In fact, the competent authority shall analyze the documents which was collected by the Investigation Officer and to accord the sanction. Therefore, learned counsel supported the report of the Investigation Officer. 6. Respondent No.2 also appeared through counsel through video conference and submitted that the 'B' Final report may be accepted when the complainant not interested in prosecuting the matter and without his statement and evidence the Trial Court cannot proceed with the trial against the accused and which is nothing but a futile exercise hence prayed for allowing the petition. 7. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of records, it is alleged that respondent No.2 herein filed complaint to the ACB alleging that the accused-petitioner demanded Rs.10.00 lakhs for filing 'B' Final report against him in a case registered against him before the Indiranagar Police in Crime No.91/2020 on the complaint filed by the Indiranagar club. It is alleged that he has given cheque for Rs.2,95,000.00 and Rs.7.05 lakhs by cash and during the investigation he has not supported his complaint and there is no material available before the Investigation Officer wherein the petitioner filed charge sheet in crime No.09/2021 but not the 'B' Final Report and therefore the contention of the complainant that he has paid money for filing 'B' Final report is not correct. That apart the accused said to have paid the cash to the ECA club membership which is subsequently cancelled as his job was transferable job and requested for issuing temporary and honorary membership and the said club also cancelled the membership. The Investigation Officer collected membership of the accused No.2 in the said club but not to this petitioner and the Investigation Officer has collected document that the amount collected by accused No.2 Rammohan in the name of the petitioner and after knowing it the petitioner has cancelled his membership and there is no material to show the said amount was received by this petitioner from the complainant, therefore based on all these facts the Investigation Officer came to the conclusion that there is no material against the petitioner, hence he filed B Final Report and subsequently the complainant also stated no objection for accepting the 'B' Final report. Such being the case, based on the same material the Trial Court passed an order stating that there is a material for taking cognizance is not correct. 8. Such being the case, based on the same material the Trial Court passed an order stating that there is a material for taking cognizance is not correct. 8. That apart once 'B' Final report is filed the Court is required to hold a minimum enquiry by examining the witnesses by way of sworn statement, then should take the cognizance and thereafter proceed to issue process under Sec. 204 of Cr.P.C. A guidelines also issued by the coordinate bench of this court in a reported case ILR 2018 Karnataka 1725 in the case of Dr. Ravikumar vs Ms. KMC Vasanath and Anr, wherein the co-ordinate bench of this Court has held taking cognizance without following procedure under Ss. 200 to 204 of Cr.P.C, the taking cognizance itself is not sustainable. In the said Ravikumar's case where the protest petition was filed and the sworn statement also recorded thereafter cognizance was taken in the said case, the coordinate bench quashed the taking of the cognizance. But here in this case the Investigation Officer filed 'B' Final report, the complainant also submitted no objection such being the case, there is no other alternative for the Special Court for accepting the 'B' Final report but rejection of the 'B' Final report and directing the Investigation Officer to place his order before the competent authority is not correct. The very observation of the learned Special Court directing the Investigation Officer to place his order before the competent authority for obtaining the sanction is nothing but a issuing a direction to the competent authority and compelling to accord sanction under Sec. 19 of PC Act is not sustainable. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court has held in catena of decisions that the competent authority shall independently verify the documents and apply the mind on the materials filed by the Investigation Officer then accord the sanction. Such being the case, the order of the Special Judge is nothing but a direction to issue sanction is unsustainable under the law. 10. Such being the case, the order of the Special Judge is nothing but a direction to issue sanction is unsustainable under the law. 10. That apart, when complaint is not supporting the case, Investigation Officer also not supporting the case, material is also insufficient for framing of the charge, such being the case, if trial is taken up and if no one support the case, by giving evidence, the Court not able to hold a trial against the accused which is nothing but a futile exercise by the Trial Court as submitted the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. In view of the above said observation and judgment of the coordinate bench in Ravikumar's case and in view of the above observation, the order of the Special Court rejecting 'B' Final report and directing Investigation Officer to place his impugned order before the competent authority are required to be set aside. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the XXIII Additional City and Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (P.C.Act) Bengaluru dtd. 8/11/2021 and consequently rejecting the 'B' Final Report in Crime No.09/2021 of ACB Bangalore is hereby quashed. The no objection of the respondent No.2 is taken on record and 'B' Final Report of the Investigation Officer is accepted and consequently the complaint and FIR in Crime No.09/2021 is hereby dismissed.