IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7213/2015 BETWEEN SRI CHAKRAVATHI MOHAN AGED ABOUT 56 YERAS S/O LATE SRI. P.S. CHANDRAN RESIDING AT 26, 8TH CROSS, PRASHANTHNAGAR, BANGALORE-560 079. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. B B PATIL, ADVOCATE ) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE REPRESENTED BY :
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. DINESH KALLAHALLY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O RAMAIAH PRESIDENT, NAGARIKA HAKKU HORATA SAMITHI KALLAHALLY POST KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-575701 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARABATTI, SPL. PP FOR R1 R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CRIME NO.7/2015 AT ANNEXURE-A, THE FIR REGISTERED IN RELATION TO CRIME NO.7/2015 IN RELATION TO ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 7(a) & (b) AND 13(d) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AT ANNEXURE-B AND ALSO THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER CALLING UPON THE PETITIONER TO GIVE HIS RESPONSE AT ANNEXURE-C.
THIS CRIMINAL 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 seeking to quash the complaint filed by respondent No.2 based on which FIR is registered in crime No.7/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is duly served and unrepresented.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint does not disclose any allegations regarding allotment made by the petitioner to any person either any time earlier to lodging of FIR or subsequent thereto. No material has been produced before the Court to substantiate the allegations that the alleged allotment was made by the petitioner. Under the said circumstances, registration of the case against the petitioner is utter abuse of process of Court and thus, seeks to quash the proceedings.
4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that the investigation has reached final stage and therefore, there is no ground to quash the proceedings.
5. On perusal of the records, it is noticed that FIR was registered on 12.02.2015. The said FIR is registered based on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2. In the complaint, it is stated that the petitioner herein being the CEO of KIADB allotted a valuable land belonging to KIADB in Peenya Industrial Area to one Sri Gunashekaran of Tamil Nadu by taking a bribe of Rs.1 Crore, by abusing his official position and violating the Rules.
6. Even though the petitioner has taken up a specific plea in the petition that no such allotment has been made to the aforesaid Sri Gunashekaran, contesting respondent No.1 has not controverted the said statement by filing statement of objections nor has he produced any material to show that such an allotment in fact has been made by the petitioner, so as to furnish a ground for the Investigating Agency to enquire into the allegations of the demand and payment of the bribe. There is no material whatsoever in proof of the allotment said to have been made by the petitioner. Therefore, the question of demand and receipt of alleged bribe does not arise at all. During the investigation conducted by respondent No.1, from 2015 till date no material is available to show the involvement or the complicity of the petitioner in the allotment or receipt of the alleged bribe from the aforesaid Sri Gunashekaran.
7. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 that in the course of investigation into the alleged offences, large scale illegalities have been unearthed in the matter of allotments made by KIADB Board, therefore, it is not advisable to quash the FIR. I am not persuaded by this line of argument. As discussed above, insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned no material is available on record to show his involvement in the alleged offence. It is trite law that when the materials do not disclose an offence, no investigation should normally be permitted. Ends of justice and prevention of abuse of criminal process is higher than the roving inquiry undertaken by the respondent. In the said circumstance, continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of Court. As a result, the petition is allowed.
8. Respondents are directed to delete the name of the petitioner from the array of accused in the FIR registered in Crime No.7/2015. The Investigation into the alleged offence shall continue. It is made clear that in the event any incriminating material is collected during investigation establishing the involvement of the petitioner in the allotment of plots by the KIADB, the Investigating Agency is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, notwithstanding this order.
Sd/- JUDGE PYR