AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the entire proceedings pending on the file of the 4th Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Belgaum in connection with a private complaint No. 8/2012 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(b)(c) and (d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and also under Sections 107, 166, 323, 324, 341, 408, 409, 417, 420, 468, 471, 504, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. One Gopal Hanumant Bapshet - respondent No. 1 herein lodged a private complaint u/s 200 of Cr.P.C. making the allegations against the petitioners herein who are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 3 and also against 3 other persons for the above said offences.
The gist of the case is that the petitioners being the public servants working in the Gram Panchayath, Khanapur, they have misused the funds allotted to MNREGA and they did not desist themselves from misusing the funds in spite of the complainant drawing their attention and when the complainant went to question the act of these petitioners and others, in fact all the accused persons have abused the complainant with filthy language and also threatened the complainant with dire consequences of killing him, etc. The said complaint was referred to the Lokayukta Police, Belgaum for investigation and report. The Police have registered FIR in Crime No. 8/2012 and started the investigation. On 10.09.2012 the Police have submitted interim report, reporting the stage of the investigation and sought for further time. When the matter stood thus, the present petition is filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings and also the further investigation on the simple ground that the complaint was not accompanied by a valid sanction order granted by the competent authority to prosecute the accused persons.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Anil Kumar and Others Vs. M.K. Aiyappa and Another, wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court has categorically held that when a private complaint is filed before the Magistrate he has two options, one either to take cognizance of the offence u/s 190 of Cr.P.C. or he can direct the investigation u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C., The Magistrate who is empowered u/s 190 to take cognizance alone has the power to refer the private complaint for investigation, valid sanction to prosecute is the pre-condition for ordering investigation u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Even at the pre-cognizance stage also, the sanction to prosecute the accused is absolutely a legal requirement.
Therefore, the proceedings against the accused in the said case also filed under the provisions particularly similar to that of this case were quashed.
In view of the above said Ruling and the facts of this particular case, the above said Ruling is aptly applicable as the provision of Section 13(1)(c)(d) have been invoked by the complainant, the complaint has to be accompanied with a sanction order. Therefore, the complainant is at liberty if advised, to move Special Court with a complaint along with the proper sanction order issued by the competent authority. With these observations, the petition stands allowed and all the further proceedings in connection with P.C.R. No. 8/2012 on the file of the Special Judge and IV Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum and also the investigation pending before the Karnataka Lokayukta, Belgaum in Crime No. 8/2012 are hereby quashed.