2021 (10) TMI 1454 - SC - Indian Laws

Prior approval granted by the Commissioner of Police Bengaluru City to invoke Section 3 of the Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act 2000 - whether prior approval accorded by the competent authority Under Section 24(1)(a) is valid? - HELD THAT - Concededly the original FIR registered in the present case was for an ordinary crime of murder against unknown persons. At the relevant time the material regarding offence having been committed by an organized crime syndicate was not known. That information came to the fore only after investigation of the offence by the SIT as has been mentioned in the report submitted to the Commissioner of Police Bengaluru City for seeking his prior approval to invoke Section 3 of the 2000 Act. Once again at this stage the Commissioner of Police had focussed only on the factum of information regarding the commission of organized crime by an organized crime syndicate and on being prima facie satisfied about the presence of material on record in that regard rightly proceeded to accord prior approval for invoking Section 3 of the 2000 Act - the specific role of the concerned Accused is not required to be and is not so mentioned in the stated prior approval. That aspect would be unravelled during the investigation after registration of offence of organized crime. The High Court thus examined the matter by applying erroneous scale. The observations made by the High Court in the impugned judgment clearly reveal that it has glossed over the core and tangible facts. The High Court without analysing the material presented along with chargesheet on the basis of which cognizance has been taken by the competent Court including against the writ Petitioner-Mohan Nayak N. concerning commission of organized crime by the organized crime syndicate of which he is allegedly a member committed manifest error and exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the chargesheet filed before the competent Court qua the writ Petitioner-Mohan Nayak N. As regards offences punishable Under Section 3(2) 3(3) 3(4) or 3(5) it can proceed against any person sans such previous offence registered against him if there is material to indicate that he happens to be a member of the organized crime syndicate who had committed the offences in question and it can be established that there is material about his nexus with the Accused who is a member of the organized crime syndicate. A priori the conclusion reached by the High Court in partly allowing the writ petition filed by the writ Petitioner-Mohan Nayak N. is manifestly wrong and cannot be countenanced. In any case the High Court has completely glossed over the crucial fact that the writ petition was filed only after the sanction was accorded by the competent authority Under Section 24(2) and more so cognizance was also taken by the competent Court of the offence of organized crime committed by the members of organized crime syndicate including the writ Petitioner - to which there was no challenge. The High Court has not analysed the efficacy of these developments as disentitling the writ Petitioner belated relief claimed in respect of prior approval Under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2000 Act. Further the High Court has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the chargesheet filed against the writ Petitioner-Mohan Nayak N. for offences punishable Under Section 3(2) 3(3) and 3(4) of the 2000 Act at this stage. Conclusion - The prior approval was not for registering crime against individual offenders as such but for recording of information regarding commission of an offence of organized crime under the 2000 Act. The prior approval and chargesheet were found to be valid and the High Court erred in its interpretation and application of the 2000 Act. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court needs to be set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

• Whether the prior approval dated 14.08.2018 granted by the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City, to invoke Section 3 of the Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000 (the 2000 Act) was valid.
• Whether the High Court was correct in quashing the chargesheet against Mohan Nayak N. under the provisions of the 2000 Act.
• Whether the High Court erred in its interpretation and application of the legal framework concerning organized crime under the 2000 Act.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Validity of Prior Approval under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2000 Act

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 24(1)(a) of the 2000 Act requires prior approval from a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police before recording an offence of organized crime. The precedents considered include State of Maharashtra v. Lalit Somdatta Nagpal and Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court emphasized that the prior approval is for recording the offence of organized crime, not for charging specific individuals. The focus is on whether there is credible information about the commission of organized crime by a syndicate.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The Commissioner of Police had credible material indicating organized crime by a syndicate, including training in arms and plans to cause public disturbances. The approval was based on this material.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the Commissioner rightly granted prior approval based on credible information about organized crime, and the High Court erred by focusing on individual roles at this stage.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court rejected the High Court's approach, which required examining individual roles at the approval stage, noting that this analysis is premature and not required under Section 24(1)(a).
• Conclusions: The prior approval was valid as it was based on credible information about organized crime by a syndicate, and the High Court's quashing of this approval was erroneous.

Quashing of Chargesheet Against Mohan Nayak N.

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The chargesheet was filed under Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3), and 3(4) of the 2000 Act. The precedents include Ranjitsingh Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, which clarifies the application of organized crime laws.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court held that the High Court erred by quashing the chargesheet without analyzing the material presented with it. The High Court's reliance on precedents was misplaced as they did not apply to the facts at hand.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The chargesheet included evidence of Mohan Nayak N.'s nexus with the organized crime syndicate, which was sufficient to proceed under the 2000 Act.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the High Court misapplied the law by requiring more than two chargesheets against Mohan Nayak N. for continuing unlawful activity, which is not necessary for charges under Sections 3(2), 3(3), and 3(4).
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court distinguished between the requirements for different charges under the 2000 Act, noting that the High Court conflated the standards applicable to Section 3(1) with those for other sections.
• Conclusions: The chargesheet against Mohan Nayak N. was validly filed, and the High Court's quashing of it was based on an incorrect interpretation of the legal requirements.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The prior approval was not for registering crime against individual offenders as such, but for recording of information regarding commission of an offence of organized crime under the 2000 Act."
• Core Principles Established: The requirement of prior approval under Section 24(1)(a) is for recording organized crime, not individual roles. The presence of credible information about organized crime by a syndicate is sufficient for approval.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue: The appeals were allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the writ petition by Mohan Nayak N. was dismissed. The prior approval and chargesheet were found to be valid, and the High Court erred in its interpretation and application of the 2000 Act.