1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9214/2017

BETWEEN:

1.

RAMESH

S/O. NAGARAJU

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

COMMISSIONER

HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

HASSAN 3 573 201

2.

K.B.NINGARAJU

S/O. BASAVEGOWDA

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

PLANNING MEMBER

HASSAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

HASSAN - 573201

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI JAGADEESH H.T., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

ANTI CORRUPTION BEAURO

HASSAN POLICE STATION

HASSAN

SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

BANGALORE 3 560 001

2.

SUJITH NARAYAN

S/O. K.S.NARAYANA

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

2

R/O. LIG, 255, 25^TH CROSS

KUVEMPUNAGAR

HASSAN 3 573 201

&RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MANMOHAN P.N., ADV. FOR R1;

R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C

PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN

CR.NO.7/2017 OF ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, HASSAN.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint under

Section 200 Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under

Sections 13(1)(c)(d)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 409 and 420 read with

Section 149 of IPC alleging that the petitioner/accused

No.3 colluding with other accused have constructed

seventh floor without obtaining sanctioned plan.

2.

Learned Magistrate referred the matter to the

Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) for investigation under

Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The ACB registered the FIR for

3

the aforesaid offences against the petitioners/accused.

Hence, this petition.

3.

Learned

counsel

appearing

for

the

petitioners/accused submits that the offences alleged

against the petitioners/accused are cognizable and in the

absence of an affidavit filed along with complaint for

having satisfied the requirements of Sections 154(1) and

154(3) of Cr.P.C., the complaint filed by respondent No.2

is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Hon9ble

Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and

another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others

reported in (2015)6 SCC 287.

4.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.1-ACB submits that the allegations made in the

complaint clearly discloses the commission of offences

alleged against the petitioners/accused and non-filing of

affidavit by the complainant is curable defect and the

4

matter may be remanded to the learned Magistrate to

enable the complainant to file an affidavit.

5.

I have considered the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the parties.

6.

Perusal of the complaint filed by respondent

No.2 discloses that there is no averment in the complaint

that the complainant had approached the Jurisdictional

Police to register the FIR against the petitioners/accused

and other accused and Police have refused to register the

FIR and thereafter, the complainant approached the higher

official for taking appropriate action by sending complaint

in writing through registered post acknowledgement due.

In the absence of said averment, the submissions of the

learned counsel for the respondent-ACB that non filing of

affidavit by the complainant is curable defect is not

acceptable.

5

7.

Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

The Criminal Petition is allowed.

The impugned FIR in crime No.7/2017 registered by

the Anti Corruption Bureau, Hassan Police, Hassan is

hereby quashed insofar as it relates to petitioner Nos.3

and 4.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KA