Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-005521-005521 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 38519/2018 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority (reaffirms established quashing jurisprudence) |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Bhajanlal, Devendrappa, quashing principles under Section 482 CrPC |
| Type of Law | Criminal procedure (quashing of FIR under Prevention of Corruption Act) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act was liable to be quashed because (a) the governing Government Order mandated prior sanction for any ACB investigation and none was obtained; (b) three complaints on the same land-allotment cause of action had been previously investigated and closed by the Lokayukta, and an 11-year delay coupled with political rivalry pointed to malafide prosecution; and (c) some allotments were upheld in administrative or judicial proceedings. In doing so, it reaffirmed the categories for quashing under Bhajanlal (1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335) and the sparing exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, while emphasizing the State’s public-trust duty in land distribution under Articles 38 and 39(b) of the Constitution. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Ex-MLA chaired a committee (1998–2007) that regularized unauthorized land occupation. Three Lokayukta complaints (2012, 2017, 2018) alleged improper allotments to non-entitled persons; first two were closed after inquiry. ACB registered FIR on 8 January 2018 without prior sanction under a Government Order. Appellant filed writ and Section 482 CrPC petitions alleging political vendetta, delay, lack of personal knowledge, and bar of sanction; High Court refused to quash. Supreme Court granted appeal and quashed FIR. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts |
| Follows | State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal (1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Supreme Court held that a Government Order requiring prior approval for ACB probes operates as an express bar to investigation without sanction.
- Multiple complaints on the same facts, closed by Lokayukta after inquiry, plus an 11-year delay and political rivalry can establish malafide prosecution justifying quashing.
- Reaffirms that Section 482 CrPC may be invoked to quash corruption FIRs where statutory preconditions (sanction) are not met.
- Clarifies that Lokayukta’s earlier recommendatory closures carry weight against subsequent ACB investigations.
- Counsel can cite this judgment to challenge FIRs under the PC Act when administrative or statutory immunities have not been observed.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Welfare-State and Public-Trust Doctrine
Articles 38, 39(b) impose fiduciary duties on State in land distribution; arbitrariness barred by Article 14 (Royappa, Maneka Gandhi, Shetty). - Quashing Powers under Section 482 CrPC
Reaffirms Bhajanlal’s categories to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice; use sparingly and guided by Devendrappa. - Statutory/Administrative Sanction Requirement
Government Order (14 Mar 2016, Clause 5) mandates prior approval for any ACB investigation; absence of sanction vitiates probe (akin to Sections 19 PC Act/197 CrPC). - Malice and Multiple Complaints
Three complaints on same cause, closed twice by Lokayukta; unexplained delay of up to 11 years; filing by political rivals indicates malafide (Gurdial Singh, W.B. SEB, Ratnagiri Gas). - Prior Administrative and Judicial Outcomes
Certain allotments were later upheld by the competent authority; absence of fresh material undermines FIR’s basis.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant – R. Ashoka)
- Complaints are politically motivated and filed by rival party members.
- Earlier Lokayukta inquiries (2012, 2014) closed complaints for lack of merit; no new evidence in 2018.
- Delay is barred by Section 8 of Karnataka Lokayukta Act.
- Committee merely recommendatory; eligibility and allotment decisions rest with Deputy Commissioner.
- Government Order mandates prior sanction for ACB investigations; none was obtained.
- Four allotments in question were subsequently upheld by competent authorities.
Respondent (State of Karnataka / ACB)
- ACB conducted preliminary inquiry disclosing cognizable offences before FIR.
- Irregular allotments: non-entitled persons, false income affidavits, excess land, 18 km limit violations.
- Investigation stage does not require sanction under Section 197 CrPC.
- Lokayukta lacks power to probe Prevention of Corruption Act offences; ACB derives authority under Article 162.
- Delay does not bar prosecution (nullum tempus occurrit regi).
Factual Background
Between 1998 and 2007, the appellant chaired a committee for regularizing unauthorized land occupation in Karnataka. A first Lokayukta complaint (Sept 2012) alleging mis-allotments was closed after inquiry in 2013; a revised inquiry in 2014 again closed it. Fresh complaints in Nov 2017 and Jan 2018 led to a preliminary ACB inquiry and FIR on 8 January 2018 for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant filed petitions under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC; the High Court refused quashing. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 482 CrPC: High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and do real justice.
- Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984:
- Section 7–8: Lokayukta’s jurisdiction and restrictions; complaints older than five years barred.
- Government Order dated 14 March 2016 (Clause 5): No ACB investigation without prior sanction from recruiting authority.
- Section 197 CrPC and Section 19 Prevention of Corruption Act: Require sanction before prosecuting public servants in official acts.
- Articles 14, 38, 39(b) of the Constitution: Equality and welfare-state obligations guiding reasonable State action.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed