Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — S. 482 — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — S. 19 — Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 — Ss. 7, 8 — Quashing of FIR — Abuse of process — Absence of sanction — Multiple complaints on same cause of action — Political vendetta — Mala fides — FIR registered by Anti-Corruption Bureau on allegations of illegal allotment of government land during tenure of appellant as Chairman of Regularisation Committee — Earlier complaints on identical allegations investigated by Lokayukta and closed twice for lack of material — Third complaint filed after inordinate delay — No prior sanction obtained though Government Order mandated sanction even before investigation — Investigation commenced in teeth of express statutory and executive bar — Complaints found politically motivated — FIR vitiated by malice, delay and lack of sanction — Case squarely covered by State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal categories — FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed — Appeals allowed.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — S. 482 — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — S. 19 — Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 — Ss. 7, 8 — Quashing of FIR — Abuse of process — Absence of sanction — Multiple complaints on same cause of action — Political vendetta — Mala fides — FIR registered by Anti-Corruption Bureau on allegations of illegal allotment of government land during tenure of appellant as Chairman of Regularisation Committee — Earlier complaints on identical allegations investigated by Lokayukta and closed twice for lack of material — Third complaint filed after inordinate delay — No prior sanction obtained though Government Order mandated sanction even before investigation — Investigation commenced in teeth of express statutory and executive bar — Complaints found politically motivated — FIR vitiated by malice, delay and lack of sanction — Case squarely covered by State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal categories — FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed — Appeals allowed.

---

B. ANALYSIS OF FACTS

1. The appellant was an elected MLA and had served as Chairman of the Committee for Regularisation of Unauthorised Occupation between 1998 and 2007.

2. A first complaint dated 05.09.2012 was made to the Lokayukta alleging illegal allotment of government land meant for SC/ST and economically weaker sections to ineligible persons.

3. The Lokayukta authorities, after inquiry, categorically concluded in 2012 and again in a revised inquiry report dated 04.08.2014, that:

   • the allegations against the appellant were unsubstantiated, and

   • the complaints deserved to be closed.

4. A second complaint dated 09.11.2017 and a third complaint dated 03.01.2018 were filed raising substantially the same allegations, though with minor variations in description and period.

5. On the third complaint, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) conducted a preliminary inquiry and registered FIR No. 5/2018 dated 08.01.2018.

6. The appellant approached the High Court under Article 226 / Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR.

7. The High Court declined interference, holding that investigation should proceed.

8. The appellant challenged the High Court judgment before the Supreme Court.

---

C. ANALYSIS OF LAW

1. Principles Governing Quashing of FIR

The Court reiterated the settled principles laid down in:

• State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

• State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa

• Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (as reiterated in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani)

The Court emphasized that quashing is justified where:

• proceedings are barred by law, or

• continuation amounts to abuse of process, or

• the prosecution is maliciously instituted.

---

2. Multiple Complaints on Same Cause of Action

The Court found that:

• All three complaints arose from the same set of facts, namely allotment of land during the appellant’s tenure.

• Two prior complaints had already been investigated and closed by the Lokayukta in its recommendatory jurisdiction.

• Entertaining a third complaint on identical allegations, without new material, was impermissible.

---

3. Absence of Mandatory Sanction

The Court held that:

• The Government Order governing the ACB mandated prior sanction even before commencement of investigation.

• The record was conspicuously silent on any sanction having been obtained.

• Consequently, the preliminary inquiry, FIR and all subsequent proceedings were initiated in the face of an express legal bar.

This squarely attracted Bhajan Lal category (6).

---

4. Lokayukta and ACB — Jurisdictional Context

The Court examined:

• The investigative and recommendatory role of the Lokayukta under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act.

• The subsequent abolition of the ACB, and re-transfer of investigations to the Lokayukta.

The Court noted that even after re-transfer, the Lokayukta’s consistent stand was that allegations against the appellant lacked merit.

---

5. Mala Fides and Political Vendetta

Applying settled law on mala fides, the Court found that:

• All complainants were members of a rival political party.

• Complaints were filed after long, unexplained delays (five years, then eleven years).

• The timing and repetitive nature of complaints showed a concerted attempt to harass the appellant.

On cumulative consideration, the prosecution was held to be politically motivated and vitiated by malice, attracting Bhajan Lal category (7).

---

6. Effect of Judicial / Administrative Approval

The Court also noted that:

• Certain allotments questioned in the FIR had already been affirmed by judicial or administrative orders.

• This further weakened the substratum of the prosecution.

---

D. DECISION / OPERATIVE PART

1. The Supreme Court held that:

   • The FIR in Crime No. 5/2018 dated 08.01.2018 was vitiated by
     absence of sanction, mala fides, repetitive complaints and abuse of process.

2. The FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed and set aside.

3. The appeal filed by R. Ashoka was allowed.

4. Consequentially, the connected appeal filed by a beneficiary of land allotment was also allowed, and proceedings against him were likewise quashed.

5. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.