IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3141/2015 BETWEEN:
MR. MUNIRATHNA S/O LATE MR. SUBRAMANI NAIDU AGED 52 YEARS R/O. NO.147, 11TH ‘A’ CROSS VAYALIKAVAL BANGALORE-560 003.
MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY RAJARAJESHWARI ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY BANGALORE CITY BANGALORE. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. N. SHIVAKUMAR, ADV.) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI B.S. PRASAD, SPL.P.P.) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CR. NO.25/2015 REGISTERED WITH THE RESPONDENT POLICE AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, SPL.P.C. ACT, BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner has sought to quash the FIR in Crime No.25/2015 registered for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(c) and (d) read with Section 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri.
B.S. Prasad, learned Spl.PP for the respondent submits that investigation is completed and final report is sent for sanction.
3. Serious allegations are leveled against the petitioner alleging that the officials of BBMP in conspiracy with the Legislator and others have submitted proposal for approval of undertaking 64 works and out of the said proposal, although 20 works have been completed, by misusing the powers, proposal have been submitted to the Government including those works which have not been completed. These allegations, on the face of it, make out the ingredients of the offence under Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which necessarily requires to be investigated. Therefore, there is no reason to quash the FIR. Moreover, investigation itself is completed. The counsel for the petitioner submits that liberty may be reserved to the petitioner either to challenge the final report or to seek for their discharge on such grounds available under law.
4. Reserving the liberty as prayed for, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-.