IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4323 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
Sri.B.Nagendra, S/o Anjaneyulu, Aged about 44 years, R/at Door No.176/18, 1st Cross, Nehru Colony, Ballari-583 201, Ballary District.
(By Sri.Shivayogi.B.Hallur, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka, R/by/ CBI / ACB, Bengaluru.
…Petitioner …Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to quash the order dated 17.04.2017 passed u/s 227 of Cr.P.C by the XLVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Special Judge for CBI cases at Bangalore and quash all further proceedings in special case No.6/2014 now pending before the LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Special Judge for CBI cases at Bangalore, Marked as Annexure-A and B to the petition against the petitioner.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Petitioner accused No.17 in Spl.CC.No.06.2014 is before this Court for quashing of the order dated 17.04.2017 and also for quashing of further proceedings in said case.
2. Petitioner-accused No.17 herein filed IA.No.69 for discharge from the offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w Sections 409, 420, 434, 447, 468 and 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for which he has been charged. Contending inter-alia that he has not committed any of the alleged offences and he is not liable to be prosecuted and further contended that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had ordered on 07.09.2012 for a probe into illegal extraction of iron ore but charge-sheet is submitted when this accused was elected as MLA in the year 2008 from Kudligi Constituency. As soon as he was elected as MLA, then petitioner-accused No.17 had executed the General Power of Attorney dated 16.12.2008 in favour of another partner Sri.K.Nagaraj (accused No.18) to run the business, who was in charge and responsible for the day-today affairs and business transactions of the partnership firm M/s. Eagle Traders and Logistics and he had full and complete control over said firm. It is also contended that since 2008, after being elected as MLA, petitioner had completely kept himself away from the partnership firm and was not involved in any of the activities of the firm and he is deemed to be a sleeping partner and as such, he is not liable for any criminal prosecution and sought for being discharged.
3. At the initial stage of framing of charges, the Court is not required to consider the proof by which is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence which has to be put on trial to prove him guilty. All that Court will see is whether material on record and facts are compatible with the innocence of petitioner who is alleged of the offence and final result of the guilt of the petitioner-accused is not the test to be applied at the stage for considering the application of discharge. There cannot be any meticulous examination of charge-sheet material. Whether the allegations taken as a whole constitute an offence and if so, whether the proceedings is to be continued or not would only be the issue and it would be a prime consideration while considering the application for discharge. In this background, when impugned order is perused it would disclose that learned trial Judge having perused the documents at D1873, 1821, 1822 and 1888 along with charge-sheet material and statement of witnesses in general and in particular CWs 322-Nalla Reddy, 275- M.V.Mallikarjuna and CW300-C.Shivaprasada, CW205- N.M.Udayashankar and Sri.Sadiq Bichunnavar, has opined that as to what role came to be played by petitioner-accused No.17; whether the contents of the said charge-sheet material is true or otherwise, is an issue which has to be examined after full fledged trial. As such, learned trial Judge has rightly formed an opinion that there is a prima-facie material to proceed against accused for the offences alleged and has rejected the application rightly. This Court finds that there is no error committed by trial Court in that regard, either in law or on facts.
There are no other good grounds to entertain this petition and hence it stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE SB