IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.9193 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
SRI. SRIHARI S/O. LATE. GIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS WORKING AS ASST. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, R/AT BANASHANKARI EXTN, 3RD CROSS, PAVAGADA TOWN, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-561 202 ... PETITIONER (BY SHRI C.H.JADHAV, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI RAJASHEKARA T B, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, BANGALORE, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SHRI JAGADEESHA B.N., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.3/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, BANGALORE AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL JUDGE, TUMKUR REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 13(1)((e) R/W 13(2) OF P.C ACT.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard Shri C.H.Jadhav, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Jagadeesha B.N., learned advocate for the respondent.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by registration of FIR No.3/2017, alleging possession of disproportionate assets.
3. Shri C.H. Jadhav, learned Senior Advocate urged following contentions:
that majority of properties mentioned in source report do not belong to the petitioner;
that particulars mentioned in the source report are wholly incorrect and properties belonged to petitioner’s wife and her father;
that petitioner’s sister has filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.83/2016 and the said suit has been dismissed by the City Civil Court holding that properties belonged to petitioner’s wife; and that all the details of properties have been furnished by the petitioner and his wife in income tax returns.
4. With the above submissions, Shri Jadhav contended that though these details are furnished to the investigating officer, the same are not being considered and if the properties which belong to petitioner’s wife are excluded from the list, there would be no disproportionate assets as far as the petitioner is concerned.
5. Admittedly, only FIR is registered and the matter is still under investigation. The aforesaid contention urged by the learned Senior Advocate are all matters which the Investigating Officer has to bestow his attention and consider them during the course of investigation and arrive at his conclusion. In the circumstances, no grounds are made out for interference to quash the FIR by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
7. In view of dismissal of main petition, I.A.No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Yn.