Allowed

Mr. Somashekar K M v. Anti Curruption Bureau

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2021CRL.P/902/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the arraigning of the petitioner as accused No.2. The court held that without specific proof of demand or acceptance by the petitioner, implicating him was an abuse of process and a miscarriage of justice.

What did the court decide?

The arraigning of the petitioner as accused No.2 in Crime No.45/2020 is quashed.

Mr. Somashekar K M Vs Anti Curruption Bureau — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.902/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. SOMASHEKAR K.M., S/O D.K. MAHADEVU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, DEPUTY ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER, KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU.

¶8

RESIDENT OF NO.473, ITI LAYOUT, OPP. TO RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR ARCH, NAYANDAHALLI POST, MYSORE ROAD. BENGALURU-39

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI PARAMESHWAR N. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . ANTI-CURRUPTION BUREAU BENGALURU CITY DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-01

¶13

¶14

2 . MR. LOKESH M, S/O MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, NO.197, 40 FEET ROAD, 2^ND STAGE, 2^ND PHASE, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-10

¶15

… RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI MANMOHAN P.N. ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-SERVED)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE FIR IN CR.NO.45/2020 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7(a) OF P.C.ACT AND PENDING INVESTIATION ON THE FILE OF THE 1^ST RESPONDENT POLICE.

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to set aside the First Information Report in Crime No.45/2020, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short ‘the PC Act’) and pending the investigation on the file of the first respondent police and pass such other orders as deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶21

¶22

The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 has given the complaint with respondent No.1 that one Shivakumar demanded an amount of Rs.50,000/- which was negotiated and settled subsequently, for an amount of Rs.25,000/-. Hence, the respondent No.2 has lodged the complaint. Based on the complaint, the trap is also conducted. During the course of trap, an averment is made in the trap panchanama that this petitioner was also present and told that he shall pay the amount like this in future also. This petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.2 and he was taken to custody.

¶23

Learned counsel would submit that even shadow

¶24

witness also not says anything about the presence of this petitioner and so also the demand and acceptance of amount except making the remarks as above in the trap panchanama and he has been arrayed as accused, which is nothing but an abuse of process. If the proceedings is continued against this petitioner, it amounts to miscarriage of justice.

¶25

¶26

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that there was conversation between the complainant and accused No.1. During that conversation also, this petitioner had spoken to the complainant and brought to the notice of this Court the conversation available on page No.36. Learned counsel would submit that he was very much present at the time of accused No.1 receiving the amount and hence, he made the above remarks. Accordingly, he was also arrayed as accused No.2.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.1, the specific allegations are made against accused No.1 that he demanded an amount of Rs.50,000/- which was negotiated and settled for an amount of Rs.25,000/- and the trap was also conducted. The case of the complainant is that the amount was received by accused No.1 and kept the same in the drawer of the cupboard, since the accused No.1 instructed him to keep the amount in the file. The only reference made in the trap panchanama is that this petitioner was also present and made the remarks that he has to

¶28

¶29

give the money like this in future also. Hence, he has been arrayed as accused No.2.

¶30

Having perused the conversation between the

¶31

accused No.1, complainant and the petitioner herein, no where the demand or acceptance with regard to the said transaction is made by this petitioner. When such being the facts and circumstances of the case, implicating this petitioner as accused No.2 is nothing but an abuse of process. The only reference has been made in the trap panchanama. In the absence of any demand and acceptance by this petitioner, if the proceedings are continued against this petitioner, it amounts to miscarriage of justice and the same is nothing but an abuse of process.

¶32

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶33

following:-

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petition is allowed. The arraigning of this

¶36

petitioner as accused No.2 in Crime No.45/2020 registered for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of PC Act, is hereby quashed.

¶37

¶38

In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A., if any

¶39

does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed

¶40

of.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

PYR

Mr. Somashekar K M v. Anti Curruption Bureau

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Somashekar K M v. Anti Curruption Bureau

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

Sri Vijaykumar Vs Smt Sworaba Gopinath

Krishnamurthy Y Vs State by Malur Police

Smt. S G Meghana Vs Sri Amith Telkar

Sri M Chandrashekaraiah Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Nalini N Vs State by Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station

Sri. Y. Sampath Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka