Corruption Case Revived: Supreme Court Restores FIR Against Karnataka Police Official
The case of Sanju Rajan Nayar vs. Jayaraj & Another revolves around allegations of bribery involving police officials in Karnataka. The Supreme Court had to decide whether the Karnataka High Court was justified in quashing an FIR against a police officer accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Sanju Rajan Nayar, had filed a complaint against the respondent, Jayaraj, a police inspector in Bengaluru. The case originated from an incident related to the appellant’s marriage and a separate criminal case against him.
The appellant’s wife had filed an FIR (No. 555/2018) under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, alleging that the appellant had harassed their minor child. The case was assigned to Jayaraj for investigation. According to the appellant, Jayaraj and another officer, ASI Sivakumar, demanded a bribe to influence the investigation and provide a favorable chargesheet.
Since the appellant could not meet the repeated demands for money, he reported the matter to the Karnataka Human Rights Commission and submitted evidence, including a pendrive, which allegedly contained proof of bribery. Based on a preliminary inquiry, an FIR (No. 63/2021) was registered against the accused under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The authorities also granted sanction for prosecution.
High Court Proceedings and Judgment
The accused, Jayaraj, challenged the FIR before the Karnataka High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking to quash the case. The High Court ruled in his favor, reasoning that:
- There was “no direct evidence” showing that Jayaraj demanded a bribe.
- There was “no material” to proceed against the accused.
- The complaint was allegedly filed as a form of revenge by the appellant.
Consequently, the High Court quashed the FIR, leading the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.
Arguments by the Petitioner (Sanju Rajan Nayar)
- The High Court failed to consider key evidence, including the pendrive, which contained proof of bribery.
- Jayaraj and Sivakumar had assured the appellant that they would provide a favorable chargesheet for Rs. 80,000 and demanded an additional Rs. 500 per week.
- The Karnataka Human Rights Commission had already conducted an inquiry, leading to the registration of the FIR.
- Even though the accused was exonerated in the departmental proceedings, the prosecution had still granted sanction to prosecute him.
Arguments by the Respondents (Jayaraj & Another)
- There was no direct evidence linking Jayaraj to the bribery allegations.
- The complaint was a retaliatory action filed after the POCSO case was registered.
- The accused had already been cleared in departmental proceedings, so criminal prosecution was unnecessary.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment
The Supreme Court found the High Court’s reasoning flawed and restored the FIR, making the following key observations:
- High Court overstepped its authority: “The approach adopted by the High Court in quashing the FIR is legally unsustainable. It ventured into an inquiry that was unwarranted at this stage.”
- Ignored crucial evidence: “The High Court completely ignored the material evidence, including the pendrive, which indicated the complicity of the accused in the crime.”
- Prosecution sanction was granted: “Despite being exonerated in departmental proceedings, the competent authority granted sanction for prosecution.”
- Quashing an FIR at this stage was premature: “The High Court failed to apply the principles laid down in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (1992) SCC Supp 1 335.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and reinstated the FIR, directing the case to be taken to its logical conclusion.
Supreme Court’s Order
- The Karnataka High Court’s judgment dated 2nd January 2023 was quashed.
- FIR No. 63/2021 was restored and ordered to be investigated further.
- All legal questions remain open for adjudication in the trial court.
Conclusion
This judgment underscores the principle that allegations of corruption must be thoroughly investigated and not dismissed prematurely. The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that due process is followed in cases involving bribery allegations against public officials. The decision reinforces the need for courts to carefully evaluate whether an FIR should be quashed at the preliminary stage, particularly in corruption cases.
Petitioner Name: Sanju Rajan Nayar.Respondent Name: Jayaraj & Another.Judgment By: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale.Place Of Incident: Bengaluru, Karnataka.Judgment Date: 23-04-2024.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: sanju-rajan-nayar-vs-jayaraj-&-another-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-23-04-2024.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Extortion and Blackmail
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Karol
See all petitions in Judgment by Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments
See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
