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, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure and Constitutional Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether an FIR can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC in absence of statutory sanction, where multiple complaints on the same cause of action raise mala fides, and prior Lokayukta inquiries had closed the matter |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Supreme Court held that an investigation by the Anti-Corruption Bureau could not lawfully commence without the prior sanction mandated by the Government Order, and that repeated complaints by political rivals—filed years after the alleged events and after Lokayukta inquiries had exonerated the accused—demonstrated mala fides. Coupled with prior administrative and judicial confirmations of certain land allotments, these factors justified quashing the FIR under the inherent powers of the High Court in Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Appellant chaired the Committee for Regularisation of Unauthorised Occupation (1998–2007) alleged to have improperly allotted government land; two Lokayukta inquiries (2012, 2014) found no charges; fresh complaints in 2017 and January 2018 by political rivals led the ACB to register an FIR on 8 January 2018; High Court and Supreme Court quashed the FIR. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Government Order (14 March 2016) requiring prior sanction for any ACB investigation into official acts is a substantive bar; proceedings without such sanction are void.
- Repeated complaints on the same cause of action, filed years later by political opponents after prior Lokayukta closures, can demonstrate malice and justify quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
- Prior administrative and judicial confirmations of challenged land allotments strengthen the case for quashing.
- Supreme Court reaffirms that Section 482 CrPC powers to prevent abuse of process extend to cases of mala fides and procedural bars.
- Lawyers can invoke this decision to challenge FIRs lacking statutory sanction or arising from politically motivated filings.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Scope of Section 482 CrPC – Reiterated the three-fold purpose: give effect to Code orders, prevent abuse of process, secure ends of justice (Bhajanlal).
- Sanction Requirement – Government Order mandated prior sanction for ACB investigations; absence of any sanction rendered the FIR and subsequent proceedings void.
- Mala Fides and Delay – Three complaints spanning 2012–2018, by rival party members, filed long after the appellant’s tenure; prior Lokayukta closures in 2012 and 2014; demonstrated extraneous political motives.
- Prior Administrative/Judicial Confirmations – Some allotments had been upheld by administrative orders and not challenged, undercutting material basis for prosecution.
- Application of Precedents – Section 482 powers applied sparingly; accepted that these facts fell within categories warranting quashing: express legal bar and mala fide institution.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant)
- Complaints are politically motivated and filed by rival party members.
- Earlier Lokayukta inquiries (2012, 2014) found no substance; no new material in 2018 complaint.
- Delay of over five years barred under Karnataka Lokayukta Act limitation.
- Committee function was recommendatory; actual eligibility determined by Deputy Commissioner.
- Government Order requires sanction before any ACB investigation—none obtained.
- Four allotments have been upheld administratively.
Respondent (State/ACB)
- Delay does not bar proceedings for corruption offences.
- Committee recommendations are final under Rule 108D of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules.
- Limitation in Section 8 of KLA does not apply to Prevention of Corruption Act offences.
- Preliminary inquiry was conducted before FIR registration, disclosing a cognizable offence.
- Political genesis of complaint is irrelevant if material discloses offence.
- Lokayukta lacks power to investigate PC Act offences; ACB’s abolition does not invalidate past proceedings.
Factual Background
The appellant, as Chairman of the Committee for Regularisation of Unauthorised Occupation (1998–2007), was accused of improperly allotting government land meant for Schedule Castes/Tribes and other beneficiaries to ineligible persons. A Lokayukta inquiry in 2012 and a revised inquiry in 2014 both exonerated him. New complaints by political rivals in November 2017 and January 2018 led the ACB to register an FIR on 8 January 2018. The appellant moved to quash under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC; the High Court declined relief, and the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the FIR.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 482 CrPC (inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and secure justice).
- Article 14 (prohibition of arbitrariness; public trust doctrine; Directive Principles Articles 38, 39(b)).
- Karnataka Lokayukta Act Sections 7–8 (jurisdiction and limitation).
- Government Order dated 14 March 2016 (prior sanction for ACB investigation).
- Section 197 CrPC and Section 19 PC Act (sanction requirements for prosecuting public servants).
- Rule 108D, Karnataka Land Revenue Rules (finality of committee recommendations).
Procedural Innovations
- Recognition that departmental sanctions under executive orders can bar entire criminal investigations.
- Emphasis on quashing repeated complaints on identical facts as abuse of process.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed