Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi, on Tuesday (December 16), quashed the corruption case against Karnataka’s Leader of Opposition and BJP MLA R. Ashoka, and set aside all consequential proceedings. The allegations concerned irregularities in government land allotments made during his tenure as chair of the committee for regularisation of unauthorised occupation, including claims that land earmarked for economically disadvantaged categories was allotted to persons said to be ineligible and to associates of beneficiaries. The Court held that the inquiry and investigation had been initiated without obtaining the mandatory prior approval required for such action and therefore could not be sustained.

The appeals stemmed from an FIR registered by the Karnataka Anti-Corruption Bureau after a preliminary inquiry into alleged irregularities in the regularisation and allotment of government land. The principal appellant, R. Ashoka, an elected member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, had served from 1998 to 2007 as Chair of the Committee for regularisation of unauthorised occupation, with the Tahsildar as secretary and three other members.

Also Read: Chhoochhak Ceremony Gold Demand Is Not Dowry Demand: Supreme Court Quashes Husband’s Dowry Death Conviction

The allegations, first raised in a September 5, 2012 complaint before the Lokayukta, were that land intended for economically disadvantaged persons, persons below the poverty line, and Scheduled Caste beneficiaries was allotted to ineligible recipients, including persons stated to be connected to the appellant and others. The record refers to a November 2012 communication noting that the Lokayukta police concluded the appellant was not connected with the allegations.

Later complaints in November 2017 and January 2018 alleged continuing irregularities in land grants since 1994, including alleged false income declarations, breach of distance restrictions, and inadequate verification. The ACB relied on the preliminary inquiry and asserted violations in the grant process, while the appellant alleged political vendetta, lack of personal knowledge of specific grants, and overlap with earlier closed complaints. The material referred to IPC Sections 120B, 468, 471 and 420 and Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and also raised issues of prior approval/sanction including Section 19 of the PC Act and Section 197 of the CrPC, with reference to a government order governing ACB investigations.

The Court recorded that “the allegations made in the complaint arise out of the same set of facts with only minor variations as to the timeline in which these alleged illegal acts took place” and noted that two earlier inquiries by the Lokayukta had concluded that the complaints lacked merit.

On the role and jurisdiction of the Lokayukta, the Court observed that “the functions to be discharged by the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta are investigative in nature and the report … are only recommendatory”, and that no civil consequences followed from such reports unless prosecution was initiated in accordance with law.

Addressing the requirement of prior approval, the Court stated that “the Government Order … stipulates that ‘No investigation shall be carried out by the Anti Corruption Bureau … without prior approval from the recruitment authority’” and further recorded that “the record is conspicuously silent on any sanction having been obtained against the appellant”. It held that “since no investigation could have begun without such sanction, the preliminary Report of the ACB, subsequent FIR and any and all proceedings thereafter have operated in the face of an express bar”.

On the question of mala fides, the Court examined the sequence of complaints and observed that “three complaints making the same and similar allegations primarily against the appellant … have been made and on two occasions the Lokayukta has … observed the lack of any material to proceed against the appellant”. It further noted the unexplained time gaps and political affiliations of the complainants, recording that “these facts can be said to be pointing towards malice when taken together with the fact of time gap”.

The Court also took note that certain land allotments had received administrative or judicial approval and clarified that “correctness thereof is not subject matter of adjudication here”, while observing that such recognition formed part of the overall factual matrix.

Also Read: Section 92(1)(h) CPC Widely Worded, Empowers Courts To Grant Further Or Other Relief Including Probing Alienation Of Trust Property: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Court directed that “the FIR subject matter of the present case deserves to be quashed and set aside in view of Bhajanlal (supra)” and accordingly allowed the appeal filed by the former Chairperson of the Regularisation Committee.“The FIR and subsequent action” initiated by the Anti-Corruption Bureau stood quashed and set aside.

In the connected appeal filed by a beneficiary of the land allotment, the Court recorded that “now that we have given reasons for quashing the FIR against the main accused, along with the fact that allotment has been upheld by the Authority in favour of the appellant”, the continuation of criminal proceedings could not be sustained. It therefore held that “the FIR and consequent proceedings arising from it deserve to be quashed” and allowed the appeal.

“Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Gaurav Agraval, Sr. Adv. Mr. Darpan K.M., Adv. Ms. Amrita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajat Jonathan Shaw, Adv. Mr. Durgha Prakash Venugopal, Adv. Ms. Easha Chandhok, Adv. Ms. Rashi Bansal, Adv. Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, AOR Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sajan Poovayya, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Singh, Adv. Ms. Sanjanthi Sajan Poovayya, Adv. Mr. Plash Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. Adithya Nair, Adv. Ms. Abha Saigal, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR

For the Respondents: Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR Mr. P.B. Suresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhishek Bharti, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Ms. M B Ramya, Adv. Mr. Vikram Hegde, AOR Ms. Chinmayi Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Harin P. Rawal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aman Pawar, A.A.G. (Karnataka) Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Adv. Mr. Manav Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Rawal, Adv. Ms. Shreya Bansal, Adv. Ms. Urmi Rawal, Adv. Ms. Shrestha Narayan, Adv.

Case Title: R. Ashoka v. State of Karnataka & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1441
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9070 of 2018 with SLP (Crl.) No. 9614 of 2018
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Vipul M. Pancholi