<p>Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka directed the state government to allow an FIR against IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri regarding irregularities in procuring eco-friendly bags for distribution in the Mysore City Corporation and other local bodies. </p><p>The irregularities pertain to 2021 when Sindhuri was the Mysuru deputy commissioner. </p><p>Sindhuri, a 2009-batch officer, is accused of approving bag procurements from the Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation (KHDC) at Rs 52 apiece, instead of the prevailing market rate of Rs 13, causing a loss of Rs 5.88 crore/ to the exchequer. </p>.Karnataka High Court rejects company director's plea against crime for data theft .<p>Justice M Nagaprasanna stated that merely exonerating an officer in departmental proceedings cannot by itself foreclose the initiation of a criminal investigation based on the same facts. </p><p>"The complaint registered was neither vague nor speculative. It did set out, with clarity and documentary support, an allegation that prima facie discloses abuse of the office and consequential financial loss to the state. If such material does not even warrant the grant of approval to initiate investigation under Section 17A (Prevention of Corruption Act), this court is constrained to ponder what would. The statutory safeguard under Section 17A is not intended to stifle legitimate inquiry into serious allegations of corruption, it is designed to prevent frivolous harassment not to foreclose accountability," he ruled. </p><p>Approval under Section 17A is mandatory to register the FIR in cases where the allegation pertains to a decision taken in the discharge of official functions. </p><p>In his complaint before the then Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Mysuru, lawyer and social activist N R Ravinchandre Gowda stated that the bags were procured from the KHDC at Rs 52 apiece, while they were sold for Rs 13 in the retail market. As a result, the exchequer lost Rs 5.88 crore, he added. </p><p>He further alleged that funds earmarked for welfare schemes of the poor in gram panchayats were diverted to the procurement. </p><p>The ACB sought the government's approval under section 17A to register a criminal case but the request was rejected on September 19, 2022. </p><p>The complainant challenged this in the high court, whose coordinate bench remitted the matter back in February 2025, directing that it be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law. </p><p>However, the government declined the approval again on May 26, 2025, with verbatim like the earlier order, except the statement that the officer has been exonerated in a departmental enquiry. </p><p>Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the approval was sought in a complaint which prima facie discloses elements of corruption. </p><p>"The controversy that arises for consideration in the present lis, is one that strikes at the very heart of public probity. It concerns allegations of corruption and consequent loss to the state exchequer. What is projected is not a mere administrative lapse, but a decision whose ramifications allegedly extend to grave financial detriment to public funds. A cloth bag available in the open market at a modest price of Rs 13 per unit is sought to be procured at an inflated rate of Rs 52 per bag, pursuant to a decision attributed to the Deputy Commissioner," he said. </p><p>The court further said that departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution operate in distinct spheres, governed by distinct standards of proof and objectives. It also said that a further remand of the matter would serve no fruitful purpose and would only prolong the process to the detriment of justice. </p><p>"Ordinarily, this court would have deemed it appropriate to remit the matter back to the government for a fresh consideration. However, in the peculiar facts of the present case, such a course is both unnecessary and unwarranted," the court said. </p>
<p>Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka directed the state government to allow an FIR against IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri regarding irregularities in procuring eco-friendly bags for distribution in the Mysore City Corporation and other local bodies. </p><p>The irregularities pertain to 2021 when Sindhuri was the Mysuru deputy commissioner. </p><p>Sindhuri, a 2009-batch officer, is accused of approving bag procurements from the Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation (KHDC) at Rs 52 apiece, instead of the prevailing market rate of Rs 13, causing a loss of Rs 5.88 crore/ to the exchequer. </p>.Karnataka High Court rejects company director's plea against crime for data theft .<p>Justice M Nagaprasanna stated that merely exonerating an officer in departmental proceedings cannot by itself foreclose the initiation of a criminal investigation based on the same facts. </p><p>"The complaint registered was neither vague nor speculative. It did set out, with clarity and documentary support, an allegation that prima facie discloses abuse of the office and consequential financial loss to the state. If such material does not even warrant the grant of approval to initiate investigation under Section 17A (Prevention of Corruption Act), this court is constrained to ponder what would. The statutory safeguard under Section 17A is not intended to stifle legitimate inquiry into serious allegations of corruption, it is designed to prevent frivolous harassment not to foreclose accountability," he ruled. </p><p>Approval under Section 17A is mandatory to register the FIR in cases where the allegation pertains to a decision taken in the discharge of official functions. </p><p>In his complaint before the then Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Mysuru, lawyer and social activist N R Ravinchandre Gowda stated that the bags were procured from the KHDC at Rs 52 apiece, while they were sold for Rs 13 in the retail market. As a result, the exchequer lost Rs 5.88 crore, he added. </p><p>He further alleged that funds earmarked for welfare schemes of the poor in gram panchayats were diverted to the procurement. </p><p>The ACB sought the government's approval under section 17A to register a criminal case but the request was rejected on September 19, 2022. </p><p>The complainant challenged this in the high court, whose coordinate bench remitted the matter back in February 2025, directing that it be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law. </p><p>However, the government declined the approval again on May 26, 2025, with verbatim like the earlier order, except the statement that the officer has been exonerated in a departmental enquiry. </p><p>Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the approval was sought in a complaint which prima facie discloses elements of corruption. </p><p>"The controversy that arises for consideration in the present lis, is one that strikes at the very heart of public probity. It concerns allegations of corruption and consequent loss to the state exchequer. What is projected is not a mere administrative lapse, but a decision whose ramifications allegedly extend to grave financial detriment to public funds. A cloth bag available in the open market at a modest price of Rs 13 per unit is sought to be procured at an inflated rate of Rs 52 per bag, pursuant to a decision attributed to the Deputy Commissioner," he said. </p><p>The court further said that departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution operate in distinct spheres, governed by distinct standards of proof and objectives. It also said that a further remand of the matter would serve no fruitful purpose and would only prolong the process to the detriment of justice. </p><p>"Ordinarily, this court would have deemed it appropriate to remit the matter back to the government for a fresh consideration. However, in the peculiar facts of the present case, such a course is both unnecessary and unwarranted," the court said. </p>