Surya And Co vs. State Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioners, comprising 26 entities operating under the Bangalore Turf Club Limited, approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an FIR registered in Crime No. 9/2024. The FIR was lodged by the High Grounds Police Station for offences under Section 78(1)(a)(i) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, Section 12 of the Karnataka Race Betting Act, and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The police received credible information, conducted a preliminary inquiry, and then registered the FIR. The investigation was ongoing when the petition was filed. The petitioners contended that the procedure followed by the police was contrary to the principles laid down in the Lalita Kumari case.

Held

The Court held that the procedure followed by the police was not contrary to the principles laid down in Lalita Kumari. It reasoned that the preliminary inquiry was conducted for the purpose of verifying the correctness of the credible information received, and the FIR was lodged only after the police officer was satisfied with its veracity. The Court reiterated that when exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR, the High Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial. The sole consideration is whether the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose a cognizable offence. The Court found that the allegations in the first information and the material collected during the investigation prima facie made out a cognizable offence against the accused. The Court noted that the allegations were of a serious nature, including the alleged misappropriation of crores of rupees collected towards GST and TDS. Therefore, the Court was of the opinion that the prayer for quashing the FIR could not be granted. The Court also referred to the principles laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal and State vs. M. Maridoss regarding the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sparingly and only in rarest of rare cases, and when the allegations do not disclose any cognizable offence or are barred by law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the procedure followed by the police in registering the FIR after a preliminary inquiry, prior to the formal lodging of the FIR, is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari, thereby vitiating the investigation? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the police's preliminary inquiry before registering the FIR was contrary to the Supreme Court's mandate in Lalita Kumari, which requires registration of FIR upon receipt of information disclosing a cognizable offence. They contended that the investigation should not proceed based on a flawed initial procedure. Respondent's contention: The State argued that the preliminary inquiry was conducted solely to verify the correctness of the credible information received. They asserted that the FIR was lodged only after being satisfied with the information, and the investigation commenced thereafter, aligning with the principles of Lalita Kumari. The State also argued that the High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should not conduct a mini-trial and should permit the investigation to proceed if a cognizable offence is prima facie disclosed.