KAVITHA LANKESH versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 10 S.C.R. 309 · Decided: 21-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2021] 10 S.C.R. 309
309
KAVITHA LANKESH
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1236 of 2021)
OCTOBER 21, 2021
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI AND
C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000: s.24 –
Purport of – The purport of s.24 is that information regarding
commission of an offence of organized crime under the 2000 Act
can be recorded by a police officer only upon obtaining prior
approval of the police officer not below the rank of the Deputy
Inspector General of Police – What is crucial in this provision is
the factum of recording of offence of organized crime and not of
recording of a crime against an offender as such – Thus, only after
registration of FIR, investigation for the concerned offence would
proceed in which the details about the specific role and the identity
of the persons involved in such offence can be unravelled and
referred to in the chargesheet to be filed before the competent Court.
Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000: ss.3(1),
3(2), 3(3), 3(4) – For offence under ss.3(2), 3(3), 3(4), it is not
essential that more than two chargesheets are filed against the person
so named, before a competent court within the preceding period of
ten years and that court has taken cognizance of such offence –
That requirement applies essentially to an offence punishable only
under s.3(1) of the 2000 Act – As regards offences punishable under
ss.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.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The purport of section 24, upon its textual
construct, posits that information regarding commission of an
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
310
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
offence of organized crime under the 2000 Act can be recorded
by a police officer only upon obtaining prior approval of the police
officer not below the rank of the Deputy Inspector General of
Police. That is the quintessence for recording of offence of
organized crime under the Act by a police officer. What is crucial
in this provision is the factum of recording of offence of organized
crime and not of recording of a crime against an offender as such.
It is cardinal to observe that only after registration of FIR,
investigation for the concerned offence would proceed — in which
the details about the specific role and the identity of the persons
involved in such offence can be unravelled and referred to in the
chargesheet to be filed before the competent Court. [Paras 19,
20][323-D-F, H; 324-A]
1.2 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 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. Therefore, 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. Notably, 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-M, concerning commission
of organized crime by the organized crime syndicate of which he
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
311
is allegedly a member, committed manifest error and exceeded
its jurisdiction in quashing the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.