Karnataka HC Quashes Case Against Two Survey Officials Accused Of Creating False Survey Records, Citing Set-Aside Inquiry Order And No Sanction

In brief

The question

1. Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners could be sustained where the allegations against them first appeared in the protest petition and rested on an administrative order that had subsequently been quashed.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 650/2019, pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur, insofar as they concerned the petitioners, accused Nos. 6 and 7.

01Facts

The petitioners, accused Nos. 6 and 7, sought to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 650/2019, arising from a complaint alleging offences under Sections 143, 465, 468, 471, 420 and 120B read with Section 149 of the IPC, and Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (“KLR Act”).

¶ 1

Their names did not appear in the original complaint or the police ‘B’ report; allegations against them first appeared in the complainant’s protest petition and relied on an order of the Deputy Director of Land Records (“DDLR”).

¶ 2, 9

The DDLR’s order and the Deputy Commissioner’s revisional order were later quashed in writ proceedings, with liberty reserved to the State to take action in accordance with law.

¶ 3, 9

The petitioners also relied on their acquittal in departmental proceedings and claimed statutory protection as public officials.

¶ 5, 10–11

The Magistrate had taken cognizance on 14 August 2019.

¶ 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners could be sustained where the allegations against them first appeared in the protest petition and rested on an administrative order that had subsequently been quashed.

¶ 2–4, 9

ii.2. Whether cognizance could be sustained against the petitioners, public officials, in the absence of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., read with Section 196 of the KLR Act.

¶ 5, 11

03Law Applied

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 143, 465, 468, 471, 420 and 120B read with Section 149 of the IPC, and Section 192-A of the KLR Act.

¶ 1

It referred to Section 196 of the KLR Act read with Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. as affording protection to the petitioners in their capacity as Revenue Department officials, and noted that no sanction was shown to have been obtained.

¶ 11

The petitioners relied on D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain, (2020) 7 SCC 695, and Mahmood Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 15 SCC 488; the Court recorded those authorities but did not separately set out or apply their principles.

¶ 5

Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 Section 197

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 143 Section 465 Section 468 Section 471 Section 420 Section 149

04Reasoning

The Court found that the petitioners were not named in the original complaint or the police ‘B’ report, and that the protest petition’s allegations against them were founded on the DDLR’s order.

¶ 9

Since that order and the Deputy Commissioner’s revisional order had been quashed, the basis identified for those allegations no longer stood.

¶ 9

The Court also treated the petitioners’ departmental acquittal as a further circumstance supporting their case.

¶ 10

Finally, it held that the petitioners were entitled to the protection of Section 196 of the KLR Act read with Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. and noted the absence of any reference to sanction having been obtained.

¶ 11