This petition is filed seeking quashing of the Private Complaint registered in PCR No.17/2012 lodged by the second respondent herein and consequent referring of the matter u/s.156(3) of Cr.PC for investigation and registration of Crime No.37/2012 by Lokayuktha Police, for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(b)(d)(I)(II)(III)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also u/s. 120B, 420, 465, 468 of the IPC.

2. The brief factual matrix as could be seen from the records are that:

The second respondent herein lodged a Private Complaint against the petitioner herein and others claiming himself to be a social worker running an organization by name ‘Nagarika Hakku Horata Samithi”, making allegations that the petitioner herein (A1) is a sitting MLA of Rajarajeshwari Nagar Assembly Constituency and other accused persons i.e. A2 is his wife, A3 is the son of A1, who is the Corporator of Ward No.73, A4 is the daughter-in-law of A1. It is contended that the petitioner being an MLA and also former Member of Parliament has abused his office and made pecuniary gains and acquired lot of property disproportionate to his known source of income with the active support and connivance of the other accused persons. The petitioner/A1 has also given statements before the Karnataka Lokayuktha and Election Commissioner, which do not tally with his properties acquired and known source of income. It is submitted that the petitioner/A1 was born in an average agricultural family, he was elected for Uttarahalli Constituency for the first time in the year 1983 from Bharatiya Janatha Party and subsequently also, he became MLA for the periods 1985 and 1994. In the year 2008, he has been elected for the Legislative Assembly from the Rajarajeshwari Nagar Constituency. The petitioner/A1 served in various positions in his political career and embellished and misappropriated the Government money by abusing and misusing the powers and thereby amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income. It is further alleged by giving various details of the properties acquired by the petitioner/A1 that, he cheated the Government and the people by concocting and creating and forging certain documents. Making all those allegations, the complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of the Special Court, Bangalore Urban District, by way of filing a Private Complaint u/s.200 of Cr.PC.

3. On presentation of the complaint, the learned XXIII Addl. City Civil and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act at Bangalore, registered a Case in PCR No.17/2012 against the petitioner and other three persons and referred the complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Lokayuktha, Bangalore Urban, by an Order dated 5.4.2012 for investigation u/s. 156(3) of Cr.PC and to report by 2.5.2012. The order sheet produced before this Court reveals that the report is not yet submitted and the Court is awaiting for the report. The Lokayuktha Police on receipt of the Private Complaint, registered a case in Crime No.37/2012 and investigating the matter. At this juncture, the present petition is filed.

4. Sri Ashok Harnahalli, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended before this Court that the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 is not maintainable as the same is not supported by a valid sanction order issued by the competent authority. He submits that in view of the latest pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar Vs. M.K. Aiyappa reported in 2013 (10) SCC 705, the complaint itself is not maintainable without a valid sanction Order by the competent authority. He contended that, for maintaining the complaint or referring the same to the Police for investigation u/s.156 (3) of Cr.PC, even at the precognizance stage, sanction is an absolute legal requirement. Though there are some other grounds to be urged, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not urge all those grounds, but mainly concentrated on the above said s