Karnataka High Court Quashes Cognizance On Complaint Against 7 Police Officers Citing Lack Of Sanction

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a trial court order taking cognizance of a private complaint filed against seven police officers under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code, as no sanction for prosecution was granted by the government.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed ADGP Seemanthkumar Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) MK Thammaiah, Inspector SR Veerendra Prasad, DySP Prakash R, Inspector Manjunath H Hugar, DySPs Vijay H and Uma Prashant, who were attached to the now-disbanded Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB).

It said “The order of taking cognizance does get obliterated, but not the complaint. The contention of the learned senior counsel that if sanction is in place, further proceedings can go on, if there is no sanction, there can be no proceeding, merits complete acceptance.”

A private complaint was lodged by A Mohan Kumar who was previously probed by the petitioners in a case with regard to distribution of Bangalore Development Authority sites to the general public using forged documents.

The trial court, taking cognizance of the complaint, directed registration of the case against the petitioners and issued process against them.

The petitioners argued that all the officers had conducted the probe purely in the discharge of their official duties being officers of the ACB and thus, cognizance of the alleged offence could not have been taken without sanction for such prosecution under Section 19 of the PC Act and Section 197 of CrPC.

The complainant argued that his house was searched without rhyme or reason, even without naming him as an accused in any crime. Even as of today, he is not an accused in any crime. Therefore, it his right to life and dignity was violated by the petitioners. Moreover, sanction for prosecution would not be required, as what is alleged in the complaint is forgery, criminal conspiracy, extortion and house trespass and these are not actions that would come about in the discharge of official duties.

The bench noted that under Section 19 of the PC Act or under Section 197 of the CrPC, sanction to prosecute a public servant is imperative.

Noting that petitioners at the relevant point in time had searched the premises of the complainant after obtaining a search warrant, the court said, “If it is in the discharge of official duty and has nexus to such discharge, sanction for such prosecution under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. for offences other than under the Act is imperative, while it is mandatory for any offence under the Act. Therefore, sanction was required both under Section 19 of the Act or under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.”

Allowing the petition the court held “The concerned Court has misdirected itself in law in holding that sanction both, under Section 19 of the Act or under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., is not required. It has blissfully glossed over both the provisions of law.”

Appearance: Senior Advocate C V Nagesh for Advocate Raghavendra K for Petitioners.

Senior Advocate Murthy D Naik for Advocate Arnav Bagalawadi, K M Subair for respondent.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 314

Case Title: M K Thammaiah & Others AND A Mohan Kumar

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5232 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order