Sri Bheemashankar S Guled vs. Sri Suresh P

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Bheemashankar S Guled, an IPS officer, filed two petitions before the High Court of Karnataka. Writ Petition No. 21462 of 2021 sought to quash criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 22845/2021, stemming from PCR No. 9579/2018, where cognizance was taken for offences under Sections 354A, 506, 201 of the IPC and Section 67A of the IT Act. Criminal Petition No. 774 of 2021 sought to set aside the complaint and the order taking cognizance in PCR No. 41/2020, pending before the Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act. This latter complaint alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and the IPC. The respondent is the complainant in both cases.

Held

The Court allowed both petitions, quashing the criminal proceedings. Regarding PCR No. 9579/2018, the Court found that the allegations were made in the context of ongoing matrimonial disputes and counter-complaints between the complainant and his wife. The Court noted that the complainant's wife had filed a complaint against him for dowry harassment and attempt to kill, and a divorce petition was pending. The Court also observed that the complainant himself had allegedly seen and transferred the photographs from his wife's phone. Given these circumstances and the lack of clear material to attract the specific IPC and IT Act sections, the Court found the cognizance taken by the Magistrate to be illegal and an abuse of process. For PCR No. 41/2020, the Court held that cognizance under Section 45 of the PML Act was barred as the complaint was not filed by the Director of Enforcement or an authorized officer, citing a coordinate bench judgment. Furthermore, the Court noted that sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act and Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was necessary for taking cognizance against a public servant for offences under the PC Act and Benami Transactions Act, and no such sanction was obtained. The Court also considered that inquiries against the petitioner by higher police authorities had been dropped. Therefore, the Court concluded that the cognizance taken by the trial court was illegal and quashed the proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cognizance taken by the Magistrate for offences under Sections 354A, 506, 201 of IPC and Section 67A of the IT Act in PCR No. 9579/2018 is legally sustainable, considering the allegations of illicit relationship, threat, coercion, and the existence of related matrimonial disputes and counter-complaints between the complainant and his wife? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Sections 354A, 506, 201 IPC, Section 67A IT Act). 2. Whether the cognizance taken by the Special Judge for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, in PCR No. 41/2020, is maintainable without the requisite sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act and Section 197 of Cr.P.C., and without a complaint filed by the Director of Enforcement as mandated by Section 45 of the PML Act? (Question of law, turning on Section 19 PC Act, Section 197 Cr.P.C., Section 45 PML Act). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the allegations in PCR No. 9579/2018 were false and filed to harass him, a police officer. He contended that the complainant's wife had denied allegations in a previous NCR case, and that the complainant himself had seen and transferred the alleged nude photos from his wife's phone, making him the offender. He also argued that the Magistrate took cognizance for lesser offences than alleged, which was unsustainable. In PCR No. 41/2020, the petitioner argued that cognizance under the PML Act was barred without a complaint from the Director of Enforcement and that sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act and Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was mandatory for offences under the PC Act and Benami Transactions Act. He also stated that higher police authorities had dropped inquiries against him and that his wife had filed a complaint against the complainant. He relied on Priyanka Srivastava v. State of UP and a coordinate bench judgment in Crl.P.No.9071/2021. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that there was illicit intimacy between the petitioner and his wife, and the petitioner took nude photos and threatened to upload them. He argued that the petitioner's use of electronic facilities for trafficking illegal pictures attracted Section 67A of the IT Act, and threats attracted Sections 506 and 201 of the IPC. He argued that the petitioner should face trial.