R Vasu vs. The State Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioner, R Vasu, approached the High Court of Karnataka seeking to quash a sanction letter dated 03.09.2020, issued by the Under Secretary, Internal Administration Department, for his prosecution. This sanction was for prosecution in FIR Case No. 35/2020 registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) for offences under Sections 7(a) and 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was accused along with others in relation to an incident on 11.04.2020 involving the alleged demand of a bribe by police officials for releasing a complainant and seized liquor. The petitioner argued that a co-ordinate bench had previously quashed the proceedings in the same FIR for other accused, and this relief should extend to him.

Held

The Court held that since a co-ordinate bench had previously quashed the proceedings in FIR Case No. 35/2020 for other accused, the said order would enure to the benefit of the present petitioner. The Court noted that the co-ordinate bench had examined the allegations and arguments, including those concerning departmental inquiries and the lack of direct evidence against some accused. The reasoning in the prior judgment, which found the continuation of proceedings to be an abuse of process, was deemed applicable to the petitioner. Therefore, the Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the proceedings in Crime No.35/2020 qua the petitioner. The operative direction was to quash the FIR against the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings in FIR Case No. 35/2020, registered by the ACB for offences under Sections 7(a) and 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, are liable to be quashed qua the petitioner, R Vasu, in light of a previous order by a co-ordinate bench quashing the same FIR for other accused. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a co-ordinate bench of the High Court, in Crl.P.No.4791/2020 c/w Crl.P.No.5195/2020 dated 05.03.2022, had already quashed the proceedings in Crime No.35/2020. Therefore, the petitioner sought to benefit from this prior order, contending that the proceedings against him were an abuse of process. The petitioner also relied on the judgment in P.S. Rajya vs. State of Bihar to support his argument that if departmental inquiries found no material or exonerated an accused, further prosecution on the same facts could be an abuse of process. Revenue's contention: The learned HCGP for the State accepted the submission made by the petitioner's counsel regarding the co-ordinate bench's order.