Point of Law:Discharge of accused – Challenged - no active role is incriminated against her, she cannot be made liable for the acts done by Accused No.1. She was only subscribing her signature on the documents only after the documents were verified by her husband

ORDER :

The petitioner Shri S.R. Hiremath being the Honorary Executive Director of Samaja Parivarthana Samudhaya Asha Deep is the original petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in W.P (Civil) No.562/2009. A person aggrieved by the action or inaction on the part of the CBI, would naturally be free to ventilate their grievances in an appropriate proceeding before the appropriate forum. Accordingly, the present petitioner has approached this court by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order passed by the XLVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases at Bangalore City (CCH-47) in Spl.C.C.No.116/2012 dated 08.10.2015 discharging Accused No.2/Smt. G. Lakshmi Aruna from the trial and further seeking to direct Accused No.2 to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 420, 379, 409, 447, 468, 471, 477-A of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the PC Act, 1988.

2. The factual matrix of the case is, R.C.No.18(A)/2011/CBI/ACB/BLR came to be registered by the first respondent/CBI, Anti Corruption Bureau, Bangalore, in pursuance of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.7366-7367/2010 and connected matters, in which the first respondent/CBI- ACB was directed to investigate the illegalities committed by various persons in the matter relating to Mining lease No.2434 of M/s. Associated Mining Company (‘M/s. AMC’ for short), to which the second respondent/Smt. G. Lakshmi Aruna, W/o. Gali Janardhan Reddy happens to be the partner along with her husband G. Janardhan Reddy who is arraigned as Accused No.1 in the charge-sheeted case.

The second respondent herein is arraigned as Accused No.2 in the charge-sheeted case and so also in the case in Spl.CC.No.116/2012 which is pending for trial against the accused. During investigation, oral as well as documentary evidence have been secured by the Investigating Agency in support of the allegations mentioned in the substance of the charge-sheet laid by the I.O. and also recorded the statement of witnesses who have been cited as CW-1 to CW-310. They are the witnesses who have been cited in the charge-sheet in R.C.No.18(A)/2011 registered by the first respondent/CBI-ACB, Bangalore.

3. The nutshell of the prosecution case reveals that the petitioner being aggrieved by the rampant illegal mining operations in the State of Karnataka, especially in the encroached forest areas, had preferred a writ petition W.P.(Civil) No.562/2009 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India seeking to direct the first respondent/CBI to investigate and to file a report relating to the illegal mining operations. Based upon the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid writ petition, the respondent/CBI-ACB has investigated the case relating to Mining lease No.2434 standing in the name of M/s. AMC to which the second respondent Smt. G. Lakshmi Aruna happens to be a partner along with her husband Shri G. Janardhan Reddy who is arraigned as the first accused.

After the charge sheet was laid and the matter was set down for framing of charge, the second respondent who is arraigned as Accused No.2 had filed an application under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., i.e., I.A.No.21 seeking to discharge her from the offences which were lugged against the accused. Accused No.2 who is arraigned as Respondent No.2 was the partner of the firm and in her capacity, had signed cheques which were approved by Accused No.1/G. Janardhan Reddy. She was thus managing the affairs of the said company. That Accused No.2 had also actively participated in the affairs of the company along with Accused No.1 Janardhan Reddy, despite of which Accused No.2 has been discharged at the stage of framing of charges, by the Trial Court. Therefore, this petition is filed seeking for intervention of the impugned order passed by the Trial Court in Spl