Case Note & Summary
The matter comprised three criminal petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by Sri Prabhu Shankar, an Assistant Commissioner of Police in the Central Crime Branch, Bengaluru City, seeking quashing of FIRs and complaints registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). The petitioner was a supervisory officer in the Economic Offences Wing. The background involved two earlier criminal cases: Crime No. 164/2020, registered by Banaswadi Police under Section 420 IPC concerning counterfeit masks with fake certifications, later transferred to the Central Crime Branch; and Crime No. 167/2020, relating to illegal cigarette sales during lockdown, registered by K.R. Puram Police. On 11 May 2020, the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime-I) addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner of Police alleging that the petitioner and Inspector R.M. Ajay had demanded and received money to favour the accused in Crime No. 164/2020. Based on this, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, recorded a statement on 12 May 2020, leading to a letter to the police and registration of Crime No. 64/2020 under Sections 384 read with 34 IPC. Similarly, regarding Crime No. 167/2020, an enquiry led to registration of Crime No. 63/2020 under the same IPC provisions. Subsequently, on 21 May 2020, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, addressed a request to the 23rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, seeking permission to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Pursuant to this request, FIR Nos. 15/2020, 16/2020, and 17/2020 were registered by the ACB for offences under Sections 7A, 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegations in these FIRs involved the petitioner receiving illegal gratifications to help accused persons in the aforementioned crimes. The petitioner contended that the FIRs were registered without any complaint or information indicating a cognizable offence, in violation of Section 154 Cr.P.C., as the request to the court was made by the same officer who later registered the FIR. It was argued that neither Section 154 nor Section 200 Cr.P.C. authorized such a procedure. The petitioner also highlighted that multiple FIRs were already registered for the same incidents, constituting an abuse of process. The petitions were heard together and reserved for orders on 30 July 2021, with judgment pronounced on 8 September 2021. However, the provided text does not include the court's analysis, findings, or final order.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the registration of FIRs by the Anti-Corruption Bureau based on a request made to the Sessions Court, without any complaint or information disclosing a cognizable offence, complies with Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and whether such FIRs are liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for abuse of process.
Case Details
2021 LawText (KAR) (09) 33
Criminal Petition No.2470/2020 connected with Criminal Petition No.2473/2020 and Criminal Petition No.2485/2020
A.S. Ponnanna, Senior Counsel for petitioner; Manmohan P.N., Special Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 3; V.M. Sheelvant, SPP-I for respondent 2
State of Karnataka, The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Sri Rajendra, Dy.SP, ACB
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs and complaints registered against the petitioner for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Indian Penal Code.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (Assistant Commissioner of Police) seeks quashing of FIR No.17/2020, FIR No.15/2020, FIR No.16/2020 dated 21.05.2020 and the complaints dated 21.05.2020, and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Bengaluru.
Filing Reason
The petitioner contends that the FIRs were registered without any complaint or information indicating a cognizable offence, and that the procedure under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was not followed, as the FIR was registered based on a request made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB to the Sessions Court, rather than on receipt of a complaint.
Previous Decisions
Earlier, Crime No.164/2020 (for offence under Section 420 IPC) and Crime No.167/2020 (illegal sale of cigarettes) were registered and transferred to Central Crime Branch. Subsequently, based on a letter from Joint Commissioner of Police, enquiries were made and statements recorded, leading to registration of Crime Nos.63/2020 and 64/2020 under Sections 384 read with 34 IPC against the petitioner. Thereafter, the ACB registered the impugned FIRs under the PC Act on the basis of a request to the court.
Issues
Whether registration of an FIR by the Anti-Corruption Bureau on the basis of a request to the Sessions Court, without any complaint or information disclosing a cognizable offence, complies with Section 154 Cr.P.C.
Whether the impugned FIRs are liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for abuse of process due to procedural irregularity and multiplicity of proceedings.
Submissions/Arguments
The FIRs were registered without any complaint or information disclosing a cognizable offence; the officer making the request to the court himself registered the FIR, which does not fall within the parameters of either Section 154 or Section 200 Cr.P.C.
The Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station had no material to reasonably believe commission of a cognizable offence, which is sine qua non under Section 154 Cr.P.C.
Two criminal cases (Crime Nos.63/2020 and 64/2020) were already registered against the petitioner for the same incidents under Sections 384/34 IPC, making the subsequent FIRs an abuse of process.
Judgment Excerpts
the first respondent – ACB has registered an FIR in Crime No.17/2020 dated 21.05.2010 in respect of the same incident for the offences punishable under Sections 7A, 13(1)(a) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
the first contention of the learned counsel is that in criminal proceedings or setting the criminal law into motion in terms of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code was contemplated under the provisions of Sections 154 or Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The present instance is a very peculiar case, which does not fall within the required parameters or criteria either under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., or Section 200 of Cr.P.C.
Procedural History
On 30.03.2020, Crime No.164/2020 was registered by Banaswadi Police under Section 420 IPC regarding fake masks, transferred to Central Crime Branch. On 06.05.2020, the Joint Commissioner of Police directed an enquiry into Crime No.167/2020 (illegal cigarette sales). On 11.05.2020, the Joint Commissioner wrote to the Deputy Commissioner of Police alleging that the petitioner and Inspector R.M. Ajay took money to close Crime No.164/2020. On 12.05.2020, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, recorded a statement and letters were sent, leading to registration of Crime No.64/2020 under Sections 384/34 IPC. Similarly, regarding Crime No.167/2020, an enquiry led to registration of Crime No.63/2020 under Sections 384/34 IPC on 12.05.2020. On 21.05.2020, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, addressed a request to the 23rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, seeking permission to investigate offences under the PC Act. Based on this, FIR Nos.15/2020, 16/2020, and 17/2020 were registered by the ACB under Sections 7A, 13(1)(a) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner filed the present criminal petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of these FIRs and complaints.
Acts & Sections
- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: 154, 200, 482
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 7A, 13(1)(a), 13(2)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 34, 384, 420
