Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sharanappa, a judicial officer in the cadre of Senior Civil Judge, was under suspension on allegations of demanding and accepting a bribe from a party to do official favour in civil cases pending before him. A criminal case was registered against him as Crime No.239/2014 by the Basavakalyan Town Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 12, 13(2), 13(1) and 13(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR was lodged based on a complaint by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bidar. The petitioner was taken into custody and remanded to judicial custody. He filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the FIR and all consequent proceedings. The primary ground urged was that no prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 had been obtained before the registration of the FIR, and therefore the proceedings were illegal and liable to be quashed. The respondent-State opposed the petition, arguing that sanction under Section 19 is required only at the stage of taking cognizance by the court, not at the stage of investigation. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 19 of the P.C. Act and the relevant case law. It held that the requirement of sanction under Section 19 is a condition precedent for the court to take cognizance of the offence, and not for the police to register an FIR or investigate. The court observed that the petitioner's argument was premature as the investigation was still ongoing and no charge sheet had been filed. The High Court also reiterated the settled principle that the power to quash an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised sparingly and only to prevent abuse of process of court. At the stage of quashing, the court cannot conduct a mini-trial or evaluate the evidence; the allegations in the FIR must be taken at face value. Since the FIR disclosed a prima facie commission of offences under the P.C. Act, the petition was dismissed as devoid of merit. The court directed the investigating agency to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 - The petitioner, a judicial officer, sought quashing of FIR registered for offences under Sections 7, 8, 12, 13(2), 13(1) and 13(d) of the P.C. Act on the ground that no prior sanction under Section 19 was obtained. The High Court held that sanction under Section 19 is required only at the stage of taking cognizance by the court, not at the stage of registration of FIR or investigation. The petition was dismissed as premature. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Scope - The High Court reiterated that the power to quash FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised sparingly and only to prevent abuse of process of court. At the stage of quashing, the court cannot conduct a mini-trial or evaluate the evidence. The allegations in the FIR must be taken at face value. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR and proceedings against a judicial officer under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be quashed on the ground that prior sanction under Section 19 of the Act was not obtained before registration of the FIR?
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The High Court held that the requirement of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a condition precedent for taking cognizance by the court, not for registration of FIR or investigation. The petition was premature and devoid of merit. The investigating agency was directed to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is not required at the stage of registration of FIR or investigation
- only at the stage of taking cognizance by the court
- Quashing of FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised sparingly and only to prevent abuse of process of court
- High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or evaluate evidence at the stage of quashing petition
