Point of law: Inherent power of a High Court – Rejection of quash petition - complaint clearly makes out commission of cognizable offences both under the PC Act as well as IPC, it is impermissible to interdict the investigation in this case

ORDER :

In all these petitions, prayer is for calling for the records relating to the issue of the order/complaint bearing No.Gra.Aa.Pa.35 Enq 2015, Bengaluru, dated 3.10.2016 (Annexure-A) of respondent No.1 and FIR dated 7.11.2016 in Crime No.3/2016 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal and quash the same.

2. The petitioners in these batch of writ petitions are accused Nos.21, 4, 1, 23, 5, 26, 27, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 18, 20, 30, 10, 12, 29, 3, 2 and 16 in Crime No.3/2016 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal. They were working in different capacities in Panchayat Raj Engineering Division of Koppal District at various of points of time between 21.09.2013 and 2016.

3. As per the proceedings of Government of Karnataka bearing No. Gra.Aa.Pa.35 Enq 2015, Bengaluru, dated 3.10.2016, the complaint was lodged for various offences punishable under IPC as well as under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and based on the same, case in Crime No.3/2016 was registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) Police Station, Koppal Taluk, Koppal District. The petitioners are aggrieved by complaint as well as registration of the case pursuant to the same by the ACB Police against them and several others.

4. The allegations in the complaint pertain to the fact that under Rural Drinking Water Supply Scheme, certain project work was required to be executed by the Panchayat Raj Engineering Division, Koppal during the period 21.9.2013 to 6.2.2014 and a total sum of Rs.23,41,86,474/-was paid and in the execution of the project and payment of money for the same, there were several irregularities and complaints were received. Along with the complaint, 46 registers, 13 measurement books, cash books and other documents were also furnished by the Government to the ACB. The offences registered were under Sections 13(1)(c)(d)(i)(ii)(iii),(2) and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘PC Act’) and under Sections 406, 408, 409, 417, 420, 464, 471, 477, 477(A) and 120(B) of IPC.

5. In all these petitions, on account of the interim order of stay earlier granted, the investigation could not be proceeded with in the last 5 years.

6. Heard Sri. Vijaykumar, Sri. Shivaraj Patil and Sri. S.S. Yadrami, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Sri. Santosh B Malagoudar, learned standing counsel for the Investigating Agency and Sri. Anil Kale, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Lokayukta and also learned HCGP.

7. Learned counsel Sri. Vijaykumar appearing for the petitioners in WP Nos.63379-80/2016, WP Nos.58381-385/2016 and WP Nos.61291-302/2016 contended that the complaint lodged and the FIR registered on the same is without authority of law and therefore, it is liable to be quashed. He submits that the enquiry and investigation held by the Upa-lokayukta is contrary to the provisions of Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 and it suffers from non-application of mind and therefore, it is vitiated and he also submitted that there is no Notification issued under Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C. declaring the ACB, Koppal as Police Station. Therefore, the case registered by the ACB, Koppal in Crime No.3/2016 is illegal.

8. Learned counsel Sri. S.S. Yadrami, appearing for the petitioner in WP No.107657/2017, apart from above grounds contended that accused No.16 had reported for duty in Koppal on 28.2.2014 and therefore, the case registered as against him is wholly misconceived. He also submitted that the period mentioned in the FIR in respect of commission of irregularities and bribery is between 21.9.2013 and 6.2.2014 and since the petitioner (Accused No.16) had reported for duty only on 28.2.2014, he could not be prosecuted for the irregularities which had taken place much before he reporting for duty at Koppal.

9. Sri. Shivaraj Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner (Accused No.2) in WP No. 65259/2016 submitted that the complaint does not give the details of the irregularitie