1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9361 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

SRI A ALAM PASHA

W/O LATE P. AMEER SAHEB

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

NO.674, 9^TH 8A9 MAIN

1^ST CROSS, 1^ST STAGE

INDIRANAGAR

BENGALURU-560038

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI: A.P.MOHANTY, ADVOCATE A/W

Ms: VIJAY LAKSHMI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 .

SRI MURUGESH R NIRANI

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

FORMER MINISTER FOR INDUSTRIES

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

44/13, FAIR FIELD LAYOUT

RACE COURSE ROAD

BENGALURU-560 001

2 .

SRI. B.S. YEDDIYURAPPA

AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS

FORMER CHIEF MINISTER OF KARNATAKA,

R/AT NO.381, 6^TH CROSS,

80 FEET ROAD, RMV II STAGE,

2

DOLLARS COLONY,

BENGALURU-560 094.

3 .

SRI. V.P. BALIGAR, IAS

FORMER PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO

GOVERNMENT (C&I),

PRESENTLY POSTED AS CHAIRMAN

AND MANAGING DIRECTOR

HUDCO, HUDCO BHAVAN

INDIA HABITAT CENTRE

LODHI ROAD

NEW DELHI-01

4 .

SRI. SHIVASWAMY.K.S

FORMER MANAGING DIRECTOR

KARNATAKA UDYOG MITRA (KUM)

VISHVESHWARA TRADE

PROMOTION CENTRE

3^RD FLOOR, VISHVESHWARA

INDUSTRIAL TRADE CENTRE BUILDING

KASTURBA ROAD,

BENGALURU-560 001.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI: C.V.NAGESH, SR. ADVOCATE FOR

SMT: SANJANTHI SAJAN POOVAYYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

SRI: C.V.NAGESH, SR. ADVOCATE FOR

SRI: SANDEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

SRI: ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. ADVOCATE FOR

SRI: MANMOHAN P.N., ADVOCATE FOR R3;

SRI: ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

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

TO

QUASH

THE

ORDER

DATED

26.08.2016

PASSED

IN

PCR.NO.32/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND

S.J., AND SPL. JUDGE (PCA), MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALORE AND

FURTHER BE PLEASED TO RESTORE THE SAID COMPLAINT BEARING

NO.PCR.NO.32/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL

AND S.J., AND SPL. JUDGE (PCA), MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALORE

(CCH-79).

3

THIS

CRIMINAL

PETITION

HAVING

BEEN

HEARD

AND

RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.12.2020

AND COMING ON FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The short question that arises for consideration in this

petition is,

Whether

the

presentation

of

a

fresh

complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. is barred on

account of quashing of the earlier complaint filed

against respondent No.2/public servant for want of

sanction under section 19 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act?

2.

The outline facts necessary to answer the above

question are that the petitioner herein filed a complaint under

sections 190 and 200 of Cr.P.C., seeking action against the

respondent Nos.1 to 4 for the alleged offences punishable under

sections 418, 465, 468, 471 read with 120B of IPC and sections

13(1)(c), 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

4

3.

The allegations against the respondents were that

the respondents entered into a criminal conspiracy and forged

documents purported to have been issued by the petitioner /

complainant seeking to withdraw the approval granted by the

High Level Clearance Committee for allotment of 26 acres of land

to the complainant at Devanahalli Industrial Area, Bengaluru

Rural District.

4.

At the first instance, the complaint filed by the

petitioner was registered in PCR.No.25/2012 and the same was

referred for investigation by the S.P. Lokayukta, Bengaluru,

under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by order dated 21.05.2012.

Based on this order, FIR in Crime No.49/2012 was registered

against the respondents. After investigation, Lokayukta Police

submitted a final report in Spl.C.C.No.142/2013. Respondent

No.2

challenged

the

said

report

in

Criminal

Petition

No.4497/2013 and this court vide order dated 11.10.2013

quashed PCR.No.25/2012 in its entirety for the reason that the

complaint was not accompanied by a valid order of sanction from

the competent authority.

5

5. After the respondents demi