Allowed

Sri G Manjunath v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Jul 2021CRL.P/157/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR registered against the petitioner accused for alleged corruption. The Court held that the petitioner was merely executing orders of his superiors and this Court, and the complaint had no substance.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings/F.I.R. in Crime No.37 of 2020 registered against the petitioner for offences under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the PC Act are quashed.

Sri G Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.157 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI G. MANJUNATH S/O. SIR LATE GAVISIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.23, 3^RD ‘B’ CROSS, 3^RD MAIN, SOMESHWARA NAGARA, G.K.V.K. POST, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 065.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI N. SANTHOSH KUMAR, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, OFFICE @ NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001, BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

¶13

SRI HARISH S/O. HUCHAPPA, SIRESANDRA, BYATHA POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 088.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI JEEVAN J. NEERALAGI, SPECIAL COUNSEL, FOR R-1)

¶16

¶17

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED NO.3 ARISING OUT OF THE REGISTRATION OF THE CASE UPON THE INFORMATION/COMPLAINT OF RESPONDENT NO.2-SRI HARISH FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 13(1)(a) AND 13(2) OF THE PC ACT IN CRIME NO.37 OF 2020 DATED 15-9-2020 REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.1.

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This petition is filed by accused No.3 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing F.I.R. registered against him by the AntiCorruption Bureau, Bengaluru, (for short, ‘ACB’) in Crime No.37 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (for short, ‘PC Act’).

¶22

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special counsel for respondent No.1-ACB. Respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented.

¶23

¶24

The case of the petitioner is that, respondent No.2-Sri Harish filed a complaint to the ACB on 15-9-2020 alleging that, the land in respect of survey No.184 of Hunasemaranahalli Village, Yelahanka, Bengaluru, measuring 4 acres valued for more than crore was illegally transferred in the name of Smt. Subbamma by the Tahasildar and the petitioner, who is in-charge official of the Record Room Section and thereby, they are misusing the powers and committed the offences under the PC Act. Based upon the complaint, the ACB registered the case and the matter is under investigation. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for quashing F.I.R. registered against him.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that one Subbamma filed an application before the Tahasildar for mutating khatha in her name

¶26

¶27

in respect of land in survey No.184 of

¶28

Hunasemaranahalli Village, Yelahanka, Bengaluru, and when her application was not considered, she challenged the same before the Assistant Commissioner, which also came to be rejected. Hence, she filed Revision Petition before the Deputy Commissioner in R.P. No.66 of 2018. By order dated 19-6-2018, the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban, allowed the revision petition and set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Tahasildar and directed to change the khatha in the name of Subbamma. In spite of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the Tahasildar has not changed the khatha in the name of Subbamma. Therefore, Subbamma approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.29975 of 2019 seeking mandamus for transferring khatha in her name in pursuance of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. During pendency of the

¶29

¶30

Writ Petition, on 12-11-2019, a direction was issued to the Deputy Commissioner to file a Report stating as to why finger print is not given for entering Subbamma’s name in the RTC, if not already given, by 19-11-2019. Based upon the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition, the Deputy Commissioner submitted Report in the form of Affidavit for having transferred the khatha in the name of Subbamma. However, respondent No.2complainant, being not aware of the facts, filed a case against Sri Nagaraj (Retd.) Special Smt. Shanthamma, S.D.A, the petitioner, S.D.A., Record Room Section and others. The petitioner, being incharge official of the Record Room Section in the Office of the Tahasildar, received the documents and executed the orders of the Tahasildar. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petition.

¶31

¶32

Learned Special counsel for respondent No.1ACB has contended that the petitioner has submitted the documents before Investigating Officer for consideration and if stay is not vacated, Investigating Officer may drop the investigation and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶33

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has produced the entire documents in December-2020 and the same is not considered by the Investigating Officer.

¶34

Upon considering the arguments and perusal

¶35

of the record, respondent No.2-complainant filed a complaint against the Government employees for misusing the power. However, the fact remains that the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 19-6-2018 in R.P. No.66 of 2018 directed the Tahasildar to mutate the name of Subbamma in RTC record. In spite of the

¶36

¶37

same, the Tahasildar has not entered the name of Subbamma in the RTC. Hence, she filed Writ Petition No.29975 of 2019 before this Court seeking mandamus. This Court, by order dated 12-11-2019, directed the Deputy Commissioner to file a Report stating as to why finger print is not given for entering Subbamma’s name in RTC. In pursuance of the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.29975 of 2019, on 18-8-2020, Sri G.N. Shivamurthy, Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban, filed an Affidavit for having effected the name of Subbamma in RTC. A copy of the RTC is also produced, which indicates that the petitioner being an official working in the Record Room Section of the Office of the Tahasildar, executed the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and directions of this Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. There is no substance in the complaint or F.I.R

¶38

¶39

registered by the Police. The petitioner has performed his duties as per the directions issued by his superiors and as per the directions of this Court. Therefore, the case registered against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of due process of law and is liable to be quashed.

¶40

Accordingly, the petition is allowed . The proceedings/F.I.R in Crime No.37 of 2020 registered against the petitioner-accused No.3 by the ACB for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are hereby quashed.

¶41

SD/JUDGE

¶42

kvk

Sri G Manjunath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G Manjunath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Benoth Venkatanna Vs the State

Mrs. Sujatha Vs Mr. H.M. Umesh

Sri. Shankare Gowda M. S. Vs Dr. Manjunatha B.V.

Sri. Nanjundaiah Vs Union of India

Rijesh Ravindran Vs Union of India

State of Karnataka by Vs Mohammed Thousif