Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the Karnataka High Court quashing an FIR registered under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant had married in 2006, and during the marriage, his wife filed a complaint alleging sexual harassment of their minor child, leading to FIR No.555/2018 under POCSO and IPC. Respondent No.2 (Jairaj), a police inspector, was entrusted with the investigation and allegedly demanded and accepted bribes from the appellant. The appellant complained to the Karnataka Human Rights Commission, providing evidence including a pendrive. Based on a preliminary inquiry, FIR No.63/2021 was registered against Jairaj and another accused (ASI Sivakumar) under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court quashed the FIR, observing that there was no direct evidence of demand and that the complaint was motivated by revenge. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's approach was legally unsustainable as it conducted an unwarranted inquiry into evidence at the quashing stage, ignoring material like the pendrive. The Court also noted that despite exoneration in departmental proceedings, the competent authority had accorded sanction for prosecution, and the Lokayukta had argued that the evidence in trial was different. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the FIR for further proceedings, leaving all questions open.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Premature Appreciation of Evidence - High Court quashed FIR under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, holding there was no direct evidence of demand of bribe - Supreme Court held that the High Court ventured into an unwarranted inquiry at the stage of quashing, ignoring material such as a pendrive indicating complicity - Held that the approach was legally unsustainable (Paras 7-8). B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 - Effect of Exoneration in Departmental Proceedings - Accused was exonerated in departmental proceedings, but competent authority accorded sanction for prosecution - Supreme Court noted that the Lokayukta pleaded that the trial evidence was not the same as in departmental proceedings - Held that the High Court failed to consider this aspect correctly (Paras 8-9). C) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Principles of Bhajan Lal - High Court failed to apply the principles enunciated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal - Held that the quashing was not justified as the case did not fall within the categories where inherent power should be exercised (Para 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR under Section 482 CrPC on the ground of lack of direct evidence and exoneration in departmental proceedings, without considering the material collected during investigation.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment of High Court quashed and set aside. FIR No.63/2021 restored to be taken to its logical end in accordance with law. All questions of fact and law left open.
Law Points
- Quashing of FIR under Section 482 CrPC
- Scope of interference at pre-trial stage
- Distinction between departmental proceedings and criminal trial
- Principles of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
