Karnataka High Court
Manjunath S/O.Gurappa Shetty, Age 35 ... vs The State Of Karnataka By Lokayukta ... on 30 August, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA CIRCUIT
BENCH AT DHARWAD
Dated this the 30"! day of August
Before
The Hon'ble Mr. Justicé.'Aif'aIii
Criminal Petitioiii_V:N.o.79'4V8/
Between: i 4
Manjunath,
S/o. Gurappa Shett_y~,~--v..:"V V
Aged about 35«.y'e.arSs, _ ''
Occ: Gover4n:me;n'it__. Service _ _ V
(Village Acfco1i--n'té1'nt,) '
R/at G1n1ger3--,1'.;_ 3 V
Tq: 85 VD'iiSii':a.I{ioppf:a'1. ...Petitioner
(By f
And: _
of Kafnafaka,
By,Lokayu_kta Police Koppa,
*:Rep_."'bjf»Lo..kay":}kta Sp]. Prosecutor,
Hi._gh_v%CVo=.j."r..t__ of'Karnataka,
Cir cuit B.en--:c'h ,
_ Dhahfwa---d. ...Respondent
Gundawade, S.P.P.) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the impugned F".I.R. and complaint at Annexures A and B and {all the further criminal proceedings pursuant in Koppal Lokayukta P.S. Crime No.8/2010, a~::-----§\°"'M# I'\.) registered against this petitioner for the offences under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
This petition coming on for admission...1't--hi*::_._j'. day, the Court made the following:
oanmnf Though finsxnauerislfified fin adfinsmpn,"
itistaken fin finalchsposalby ceases: ofhoth the sides.
2. TheC?Fcu§ed hm crane lkx8/2010 of KoppaiLokagqRfi;f§5+7h§s§pughtan~quawnng of said case. He is allegedl'.tlo«l. the offences under Sectnnis 7*§nni=l3(1Hd) r/"I Sectfini 13(2) of 'll"=Pre'"}.er1t'i~ori--of Cloflrliivption Act, 1988. the arguments of Sri. S.S. 'VYadrlarri"Vi, the learned counsel for the petitioner- and Sri. MB. Gundawade, the learned counsel for respondent Lokayukta. ,._...t:---------«~»
4. Perused the averments in the complaint and copies of Pokice papers by the kearned counsel for the Lokayukta. _
5. Sri. S.S. Yadraaini, 1ie~.ai"ned the petitione-r--accused sit'r.o"ngly that the petitioner--accuis.e'c1_A ;V--_tota._i'£.i3E'~.innocent and that as on the alleged offences, to effect belonging to the coVmp1--ain7an.ti,Finasmuch as the proceedings pertaining to it'he.Airii1.i't.ation of iand in question werV,e_%g;ieinding'ibievifore the Thasiidar since the past th1*ee He further contends that the amount was not taken by the 'V petitionerhéaccused, on the other hand, it is said ' jto have been given to some other person and thiefefore no case for the said offences couid be iifihirinade out against the petitioner from the averrnents of the compiaint and hence entire (m..._..C}N""\...4 complaint for doing the said favour. It is further alleged in the complaint that ultimate.ly.r:'j<«th.e petitioner--accused agreed to receive as bribe from the complrasint zibfiiip-érré'cti;1gr§p"
mutation in respect of the its-.aiidi"land_V"'a.nd since the petitioner wasiinvo'tV_pprepare.gli~to'"'~.p'ay the i' said amount, he a'p.proatc'h--e:d il;iokayu'kta"i Police and filed the said co"mp'1a'i~nwat'.;:'
8. Th.e«'«abovei;' allergatpioilfr-st'inf'the complaint clearly iuflacie case for the offence" i"al'l.e.:g,e d "f against petitioner-- accu sed under the..proVi's'i'or1's__io£4E'revention of Corruption Act, V1988i.4"'=Furt1-g.er';_ Police papers reveal that ' traipiwvastp conducted and Panchanama came to that effect. They further reveal that amount was paid by the flu""«__i"complainant to accused No.2 Girish, who it-.,ec.eit{red the same on behalf of the petitioner V; "(A51 L '____.§'\*"-~./v
9. This being so, the submissions of Sri. S.S. Yadrami, learned counsel fQ,rVVs'»~_ti2_Ve petitioner--accused that absolutely made out against the petitioner accu'se-dfftciri 'the said offences cannot be a'-:;cept..e'dA.'e»."I't:"'is"V:"st.h"e.e_:
settled law that if the complaint clearly __disc1o_s_e:'~__pvr_ima' "«faAeie§ case against the accusedéttfotlf offence, the High under Section quash the investj'g'a't'i'oVf1Vf. 'diff V t t t aforesaid the present dismissed as being ,,._idevoid cifmeritvs. Sfifr'..
JUDGE