SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA AND ANR versus B. SRINIVAS

Citation: [2008] 12 S.C.R. 165 · Decided: 18-08-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I 
' .. J 
,.,, 
/ 
- -i 
-+ 
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 165 
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KARNATAKA 
LOKAYUKTHA AND ANR. 
V. 
B. SRINIVAS 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1289 of 2008) 
AUGUST 18, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Delay/Laches: Delay in investigation - Effect of, on right 
of accused to speedy trial - Held: There is no general propo-
sition of law that whenever there is delay on the part of the 
investigating agency in completing the investigation, such 
delay can be ground for quashing FIR - Question as to whether 
accused was deprived of fair trial on account of delay or pro-
tracted investigation, would depend on various factors includ-
ing whether such delay was reasonably long or caused delib-
erately to hamper the defence of accused or whether delay 
was inevitable in the nature of things or whether it was due to 
dilatory tactics adopted by accused himself - Code of Crimi-
nal Procedure, 1973 - s.482. 
Criminal Trial - Investigation - Order of Superintendent 
of Police authorizing lnspf?ctor to conduct investigation - Quash-
ing of, on the ground that no reason indicated as to why inves-
ligation was entrusted to Inspector-Held: The order passed by 
Superintendent of Police was elaborate and reasons were 
clearly discernible, therefore High Court erred in quashing pro-
ceedings - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482. 
The prosecution case was that the respondent, an 
engineer in Government department acquired properties 
disproportionate to his known sources. The Superinten-
dent authorized the Inspector to conduct investigation. 
On 15/16.6.2000, search was conducted in the house of 
respondent and certain documents were seized. 
165 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
166 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 12 S.C.R. 
~· 
A 
The case was registered under s.13(1 )(e) r.w. s.13(2) 
of Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent filed 
petition under s.482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order of Su-
perintendent by which Inspector was authorized to con-
duct investigation, the investigation itself and the FIR. The 
B ground in petition was that there was no reason indicated 
as to why investigation was entrusted to the Inspector. 
,_ 
When the petition was finally heard in the year 2006, sec-
ond stand was taken that there was inordinate delay of 6 
years in filing the charge sheet. 
c 
The High Court accepted both the stands and 
quashed the proceeding. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The order passed by the Superintendent 
D of Police was more elaborate and the reasons were clearly 
I 
discernible. Even otherwise, the effect of s.19(3) of the l 
Prevention of Corruption Act relating to prejudice has 
.,. 
been completely lost sight of by the High Court. The rea-
son indicated by the High Court to quash the proceed-
E ings has no substance. [Para 13] [177,G-H] 
State of M.P and Ors. v. Ram Singh (2000) 5 SCC 88 -
referred to. 
2.1. An FIR was lodged on 12.6.2000. On the basis of 
F FIR, the house of respondent was searched on 15/ 
.>.-. 
16.6.2000. The petition under s.482 Cr.P.C. was filed on 
I 
11. 7 .2000. Application seeking permission to substitute 
additional grounds was filed. in the year 2005. It is not a 
case where charge sheet had not been filed or that there 
G was no explanation for the delay. There is no general 
proposition of law that whenever there is delay on the 
+-
part of the investigating agency in completing the inves-
tigation, such a delay can be a ground ·for quashing the 
FIR. It would be difficult to formulate inflexible guidelines 
H or rigid principles in determining as to whether the ac-
,'J.l' ..... 
.. - -
~ 
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KARNATAKA 
167 
\ 
LOKAYUKTHA & ANR. V 8. SRINIVAS 
cused has been deprived of fair trial on account of delay A 
or protracted investigation. It would depend on various 
factors including whether such a delay was reasonably 
long or caused deliberately or intentionally to hamper the 
defence of the accused or whether delay was inevitable in 
the nature of things or whether it was due to dilatory tac-
B 
tics adopted by the accused. It would depend upon cer-
., 
tain peculiar facts and circumstances of each case i.e. the 
volume of evidence collected by the investigating agency, 
_. 
fhe nature and gravity of the offence for which accused 
'f 
has been charge sheeted in a given case. The nexus be- c 
tween whole and some of the above factors is of consider-
able relevance. Therefore, whether the accused has b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.