1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION No.201419/2021

BETWEEN:

SRIKANTH S/O SHANKARA REDDY

AGE: 50 YEARS,

OCC: FDA OFFICE OF THE DDPI

YADGIR

TQ. AND DIST. YADGIRI

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

THROUGH LOKAYUKTHA POLICE STATION

DIST. YADGIRI

REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. SPP

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AT KALABURAGI BENCH

KALABURAGI

… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, SPL.PP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482

OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO ALLOW THE

PETITION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN THE

CRIME NO.04/2014 OF THE LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION

2

YADAGIR FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 13(1)

AND (2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT AND UNDER

SECTIONS 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 466, 468, 470, 471 OF IPC

PENDING BEFORE THE SPL. COURT, PRL. DIST. AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, YADAGIRI.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,

praying this Court to quash the entire proceedings in Crime

No.04/2014 of the Lokayukta Police Station Yadagir for

offences punishable under Section 13(1) and (2) of

Prevention of Corruption Act and under sections 406, 408,

409, 420, 465, 466, 468, 470, 471 of IPC pending before

the Special Court, Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Yadagiri.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned

Special Public Prosecutor for the

respondent.

3

3.

The factual matrix of the case is that the

Additional Director General of Police (for short ADGP)

Lokayukta, has received anonymous complaint vide

Annexure-A that six-seven years back, six persons named

therein have been appointed as Teachers in the ex-

servicemen quota though they were not ex-servicemen.

There is a network in Yadgiri district seeking and providing

appointment as Teachers in ex-servicemen quota on the

basis of the fake certificates and he requested the ADGP

to investigate into the matter and take action. In

pursuance to the same the respondent conducted enquiry

and submitted its report dated 03.04.2014, as per

Annexure-D to ADGP, Lokayukta reporting that in all 22

persons were selected as teachers by the Selection

Committee

consisting

of

Deputy

Director

of

Public

Instructions, Yadgiri under ex-servicemen quota. It is

alleged that colluded with each other, appointment was

made. On receipt of such report, the case was registered.

The petitioner is the accused No.1.

4

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends

that respondent is not having any power to register the

case. The same is challenged before this Court in Criminal

Petition No.200638/2014. This Court considering the

questions raised in respect of Crime No.4/2014, allowed

the petition by coming to the conclusion that there is bar

under section 8(2) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act (for

short ‘the Act’) and therefore continuation of the impugned

proceedings

is

wasteful

diversion

of

resources

of

prosecution, accused and the Court and this is nothing but

abuse of process of the Court. Learned counsel for the

petitioner relying upon the judgment would contend that

when this Court held that there is bar under section 8(2) of

the Act, it amounts to an abuse of process against this

petitioner also.

5.

Learned Special Public Prosecutor has not

disputed the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition

No.200638/2014.

5

6.

Having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for

respondent-Lokayukta, it is clear that when this Court in

respect of registration of Crime No.4/2014 comes to the

conclusion that there is bar under section 8(2) of the Act

then proceedings against the petitioner if it is continued

would amount to abuse of process. Hence, it is a fi