Allowed

Smt Meenakshi D M v. Karnataka Lokayuktha

Karnataka HC4 Oct 2023CRL.P/5413/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR registered under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the accused, relying on a prior coordinating bench order regarding tainted money received for election expenses.

What did the court decide?

The petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed, and the impugned FIR in Crime No.60/2021 is quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner/accused No.3.

Smt Meenakshi D M Vs Karnataka Lokayuktha — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:35932 CRL.P No. 5413 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5413 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. MEENAKSHI D.M., AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, WIFE OF SHIVASWAMY, RESIDING AT NO.674, AMARA JYOTHI LAYOUT, ASHWATHANAGARA, THANISANDRA, BENGALURU NORTH, BANGALORE - 560 077.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. B.N. MAHESH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SATYANARAYANA S. CHALKE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, M.S. BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, BANGALORE - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS S.P.P. (Amendment carried out on 14.7.23)

¶14

SRI. SHARANAPPA, S/O. MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.115, BASAVAKUTEERA,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:35932 CRL.P No. 5413 of 2022

¶17

2ND MAIN ROAD, 5TH CROSS, BALAJI LAYOUT, VAAJARAHALLI, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 062.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. B.S. PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.60/2021 FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.1 U/S 7(a) OF P.C ACT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B PENDING ON THE FILE OF 23rd ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-24) BANGALORE.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner/accused No.3 is sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alleging that accused No.3 on behalf of accused No.2 received the gratification amount for the purpose of conducting election to the Society registered under the Karnataka Societies

¶24

Registration Act.

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:35932 CRL.P No. 5413 of 2022

¶26

Accused Nos.1 and 2 against whom it was

¶27

alleged that they had demanded gratification for the purpose of conducting elections to the Society in question, had approached this Court in Crl.P.Nos.3775/2022 C/w. Crl.P. No.4378/2022 challenging the impugned FIR. The Co-ordinate bench of this Court by order dated 27.06.2022 quashed the FIR holding that the tainted money of Rs.1,00,000/- was received by accused No.3 on behalf of accused No.2 for incurring expenses to conduct election. The observation made by this Court reads thus:

¶28

"What could be unmistakably gathered from the communication is that the petitioner has indicated that Rs.1,00,000/- will have to be paid in advance for conduct of elections to the Society which has to be held in Palace Grounds, in the light of the huge crowd that would ensue in the elections. This was accepted by the Society and a communication in reply was sent that they would be sending one of the office bearers with Rs.1,00,000/- and the same be received and an acknowledgment be given."

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:35932 CRL.P No. 5413 of 2022

¶30

¶31

Therefore, this petition requires to be disposed

¶32

of in terms of the order passed in Crl.P.No.3775/2022

¶33

C/w. Crl.P.No.4378/2022 to maintain parity.

¶34

Accordingly, the petition is allowed . The impugned FIR in Crime No.60/2021 registered by respondent No.1 stands quashed insofar as it relates to accused No.3.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69 CT - THK

Smt Meenakshi D M v. Karnataka Lokayuktha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Meenakshi D M v. Karnataka Lokayuktha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brainly India Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

K. Sunil Kumar Vs State by Bagalur Police

Mr. Pradeep Vs the State of Karnataka by

Lokesh K S Vs State by

C S Sathisha Vs State by

Shri Nagadeep K Vs State of Karnataka