Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 2152
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
John Michael Cunha, J.
Sri B S Yeddyurappa S/O Siddalingappa - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Karnataka Through Karnataka Lokayukta Police Bangalore City Represented By Its Special Public Prosecutor And Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.5043 OF 2019(GM-RES)
Decided On : 22-12-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri.C.V.Nagesh, Senior Advocate A/W Sri.Sandeep Patil, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri.Venkatesh S Arbatti, Special Pp. Sri.K.V.Dhananjay, Advocate
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 and 227 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 482,156(3) and 202 – Indian Penal Code,1860 – Sections 120-B, 406, 409, 467, 468 and 471 - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) and 19 - Manipulation of records - Misuse of land - Primary contention urged in course of arguments by learned Senior Counsel is that, in respect of very same FIR, accused had preferred W.P. and this court vide order quashed FIR and in view of this order, investigation against petitioner based on very same FIR is illegal and amounts to abuse of process of court - Present Complaint has been filed as against Accused No.1 in capacity of a Former Minister of Industries, Government of Karnataka and his position as aforesaid has seized Accused are not public servants and as could be seen from records produced herein, Accused have acted dishonestly and fraudulently and in conspiracy with each other to loot valuable lands for their personal benefits, have indulged in acts of manipulation of records, exercise of undue influence, cheating, which are made punishable under Section 120-B, 420 and 406 of Indian Penal Code and Accused being a Public Servant in the capacity of Minister of Industries, Government of Karnataka, has misused his official powers in facilitating large scale misuse of land by Accused persons and also for his personal gain in form of stakes in various companies that Accused benefited and has thus committed offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 in addition to various offences under Penal code as aforesaid - Whether uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish offence – Held, even though learned Special PP for respondent No.1 has sought to explain this delay by filing Objections to said Memo inter alia contending that subsequent to orders passed by Special Court under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., accused No.1 approached this Court seeking to quash FIR in W.P. and subsequently, proceedings against accused No.1 stood quashed by orders of this court respondent / complainant approached Hon’ble Supreme Court against order issued in W.P. and by order Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed Special Leave Petition, yet investigation insofar as petitioner / accused having not been stalled, explanation offered on behalf of respondent No.1, in circumstances of case, is totally irrelevant and cannot be accepted - Court refrain from directing any action against Police entrusted with investigation, lest it would prejudice investigation - However, laxity in conducting investigation in instant case is deprecated and to Court is directed to keep watch over investigation ordered by Criminal Courts in respect of misconduct of public servants and MPs and MLAs involved in the commission of criminal offences - In the light of discussion and for reasons stated above, the petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 Cr.P.C. The reliefs claimed in the petition are to quash (a) the private complaint in PCR.No.51/2013 (Annexure-‘A’); (b) the order of reference made under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. dated 18.02.2015 by the XXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (Annexure-‘B’); and (c) the FIR No.11/2015 dated 21.12.2015 registered by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police (respondent No.1) for the offence under sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and all further and consequential proceedings pending on the file of LXXI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (Annexure-‘C’).
2. The primary contention urged in the course of arguments by learned Senior Counsel Sri.C.V.Nagesh is that, in respect of the very same FIR, accused No.1 Sri.Raghunath Vishwanath Deshpande had preferred W.P.No.8885/2015 and this court vide order dated 09.10.2015 quashed the FIR and in view of this order, investigation against the petitioner based on the very same FIR is illegal and amounts to abuse of process of court.
I am unable to accept this submission for more than one reason.
3(i) Firstly, by order dated 09.10.2015 passed in W.P.No.8885/2015, the entire complaint or the FIR is not quashed. To be precise, the order passed by this Court reads as under:-
“The complaint dated 05.07.2013 so far this petitioner herein is concerned, registered in PCR.No.51/2013 and the order dated 18.02.2015 passed by the XXIII Additional City Civil and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act at Bangalore in referring the matter for investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. are hereby quashed.”
3(ii) Secondly, the order passed in favour of accused No.1 does not enure to the benefit of the petitioner.
From the reading of the complaint, I find that distinct and separate allegations are made against the petitioner (accused No.2) which read as under:-
The then Deputy Chief Minister Mr. B.S. Yediyurappa has also recklessly denotified land, disregarding the fact that the possession was taken and land was allotted to entrepreneurs.
This allegation prima facie discloses a cognizance offence insofar as the petitioner is concerned which needs to be investigated.
3(iii) The petitioner herein is sought to be prosecuted for the independent act of denotification. Though in para 12 of the private complaint it is generally stated that,
“12. … The present Complaint has been filed as against Accused No.1 in the capacity of a Former Minister of Industries, Government of Karnataka and his position as aforesaid has seized Accused Nos.1 to 2 are not public servants and as could be seen from the records produced herein, Accused Nos. 1 to 10 have acted dishonestly and fraudulently and in conspiracy with each other to loot the valueable lands for their personal benefits, have indulged in acts of manipulation of records, exercise of undue influence, cheating, which are made punishable under Section 120-B, 420 and 406 of Indian Penal Code and Accused N.1 being a Public Servant from 2000 and 2005 in the capacity of Minister of Industries, Government of Karnataka, has misused his official powers in facilitating large scale misuse of land by Accused persons and also for his personal gain in the form of stakes in various companies that Accused No.1 benefited and has thus committed the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 in addition to the various offences under the Penal code as aforesaid.”
(sic)
The circumstances narrated in the complaint and the various documents produced in support thereof clearly disclose that accused Nos.1 and 2 were occupying the public office, at different point of time, in different capacities and therefore, the general allegations made in para 12 of the private complaint cannot be construed to mean that the petitioner herein is sought to
