- (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court accepting the petition filed by the respondent under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'code' ). Prayer in the petition was to quash the order dated 12. 6. 2000 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha and investigation pursuant to the said order, including lodging of the first information report. At the relevant point of time the respondent was working as an Engineer-in-Chief of Rural Development Engineering department, Bangalore. The Lokayuktha police had registered a case in respect of offences punishable under section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'act' ). Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: search was conducted in the house of the respondent on 15th/16th June, 2000 and certain records and documents were seized. Documents relating to the respondent, his son-in-law, his daughter and son were seized. The Superintendent of police had authorized the Inspector of Police to conduct investigation. The petition was filed essentially on three grounds; firstly, the authorization given by the Superintendent of Police to conduct the investigation was contrary to the view expressed by this Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 ). The basis for such stand was that no reason had been indicated as to why it was entrusted to the Inspector. When the petition was finally heard in the year 2006, second stand taken was that there was inordinate delay of 6 years in filing the charge sheet. The high Court accepted both the stands and quashed the proceedings. The third stand was that exaggerated figures were shown in the chargesheet. This aspect does not appear to have been dealt with by the High Court. It, however, permitted the prosecution to take action on the facts afresh keeping in view certain aspects referred to in the judgment.
(3.) IN support of the appeal, Mr. Sanjay Hegde, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court erroneously exercised jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code. When the petition was initially filed, there was no question of any delay. An amendment had been sought for in the petition and prayer was to quash the order passed by the superintendent of Police and further part of the investigation done by the Inspector of Police-respondent No. 2. It is pointed out that the High Court erroneously observed that there was delay in filing the charge sheet. In any event, the delay was occasioned on account of the part played by the respondent and delay, if any, alone cannot be a ground to quash the legitimate proceedings. Further, it is pointed out that the High court has erroneously held that no reasons were indicated. Reference is made in the order passed by the Superintendent of Police to contend that reasons in fact had been indicated. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that though the High Court has not specifically referred to this aspect, the fact that after completing investigation the amount of alleged disproportionate asset which was initially stated to be more than one crore has been sealed down substantially cannot be lost sight of. Further, it is submitted that delay itself can be a ground to quash the proceedings. It is also submitted that the High Court has rightly observed that reasons are not discernible from the order passed by the superintendent of Police while authorizing investigation by the inspector.;