IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.247/2018 BETWEEN:
SMT. H.T. SHOBHA W/O B. PRADEEP KUMAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS FOOD INSPECTOR, FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIERS DEPARTMENT TUMKUR – 572 102, DIST TUMKUR R/O 2ND MAIN ROAD, R.T. NAGAR K.E.B. ROAD, TUMKUR – 572 102 TUMKUR DISTRICT.
(BY SRI. S.P. KULKARNI., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS LOKAYUKTHA POLICE TUMKUR – 572 102 DISTRICT TUMKUR.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THEN ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.CASE NO.284/2015 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AND SPL.JUDGE, TUMKUR FILED UNDER SECTION 8, 10, 12, 139(1)(D) R/W 13 OF IPC, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.5) IS CONCERNED, BEING ERRONEOUS AND OPPOSED TO LAW EQUITY AND JUSTICE ALSO BEING ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. S.P. Kulkarni, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri. Venkatesh S. Arabatti, learned panel counsel appearing for respondent- Lokayukta. Perused the records.
2. Suo moto proceedings have been initiated by respondent on the basis of the complaint lodged against petitioner and five other persons whereunder it was alleged that one Sri. V.S. Ankaiah was collecting and paying bribe amount monthly (Mamool). It is alleged that petitioner and others were collecting ` 5,000/- from each of the kerosene traders to be paid to accused No.2 as he being a higher officer of the department. It was alleged that regularly i.e., monthly said amounts were being collected and as such a raid came to be conducted and a sum of `35,000/- was recovered from Sri. Rajanna who is alleged to have collected money on behalf of petitioner. Hence, petitioner is before this Court for quashing of said proceedings contending the sanction order passed by the disciplinary authority is not a speaking order and in a casual and routine manner; same has been passed without application of mind and allegations made in the complaint cannot bring about ingredients of the offence alleged under Sections 8, 10, 12, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and till date, proceedings are not concluded though charge sheet had been filed long back. Hence, petitioner has sought for quashing of the proceedings.
3. At the time of considering the prayer for quashing of the proceedings, this Court would not sit in judgment over the probable defence that may be set up by accused during the course of trial and allegations made in the complaint indicating alleged offences would suffice to allow the trial to continue and not to stifle the same. The defence that may be available to an accused which may lead to acquittal are also not grounds on which proceedings can be quashed. Perusal of the charge sheet material discloses that prima facie offences that are alleged against the accused are made out and correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only during trial. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no good ground is made out to entertain this petition. Hence, it is dismissed.
However, petitioner would be at liberty to urge all grounds before learned trial judge including raising a plea for discharge if available.
SD/- JUDGE RU