Karnataka High Court
Mr Yunus Zia vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 July, 2014
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2859/2012
BETWEEN :
MR. YUNUS ZIA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O MR. ZIAULLA SHARIFF,
IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK,
TOWER B-9 DIAMOND DISTRICT,
NO.150, HAL AIRPORT ROAD,
BANGALORE -560 008. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI KAMAL & BHANU, ADVS.,)
AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA,
BANGALORE CITY DIVISION,
BANGALORE.
2. MR. GOWTHAM,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONER, MAJOR
GAINFULLY EMPLOYED
AS INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VENKATESH P. DALWAI, SPL. PP FOR R1)
-2-
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.23/2012 OF LOKAYUKTHA
POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY, BANGALORE.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The first accused in Crime No.23/2012 registered with Lokayuktha police for offences punishable under Sections 120-B & 420 of IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has come up in this petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid complaint.
2. Admittedly, the aforesaid complaint was registered on 28.3.2012 by the Inspector of Lokayuktha Police pursuant to a report dated 28.12.2011 published in Vijaya Karnataka, kannada daily, which was repeated on 3.1.2012 in Bangalore Mirror and on 5.1.2012 in Times of India of English edition. It is seen that on preliminary investigation the Inspector of Lokayuktha Police has noticed several irregularities in construction of IBC Knowledge Park on property bearing No.4/1, measuring to an extent of 13 acres 13½ guntas consisting of A to G blocks. It is observed by the Inspector in his preliminary -3- investigation that there are deviations from sanctioned plan in construction of said building, in deviating the constructed portion meant to be used for residential purpose to non residential purpose, unauthorisedly letting out some of the portions which were meant for parking by covering up the same and putting it to other use, while taking up the matter with BBMP officials seeking compounding, BBMP officials imposing penalty for deviations, calculating the percentage of deviation wrongfully and deliberately collecting lesser amount with an intention of causing wrongful loss to the exchequer and to deviate the same to their personal gain has resulted in a complaint being filed by him, which is registered in Crime No.23/2012. As expected, in all such matters, immediately after the complaint is filed the first thing that would be done is to stall the investigation by one of the accused approaching this Court by filing this petition. Accordingly, by initiating this proceedings the first accused has secured interim stay of the entire investigation even before this petition is admitted.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would try to substantiate that there is gross error on the part of the -4- complainant-lokayuktha police in lodging the complaint based on the paper report, thereby subjecting the petitioner who is a builder and others in to an unwanted litigation i.e., facing investigation regarding the alleged offence, which according to him, is not committed by any of the accused stated in the complaint. It is further stated that in this behalf, a writ petition was filed which has reached the stage of appeal and presently pending on the file of first Court Hall of this Court and hence, the result of same should be awaited by this Court.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent-Lokayuktha Police. On going through the material available on record, it is clearly seen that the second respondent-complainant has taken pains to bring to the notice of the Court certain irregularities and illegalities said to have committed by the petitioner herein and other accused in Crime No.23/2012 while putting up construction in IBC Knowledge Park on property bearing No.4/1, Bannergatta Road, Bangalore. In such circumstance, the normal practice would be, when a complaint is filed either with reference to a minor offence or a major offence, the allegation in to the complaint will have to -5- be investigated by the proper authority at the earliest and there should not be any delay in such investigation. That any delay to commence the investigation in itself may cause removal of the material evidence required to submit final report. There are possibilities of any of the accused in trying to meddle or tamper with the relevant document or files with respect to which the investigation is required to be conducted. In the instant case also though complaint is lodged in the year 2012, for one or the other reason investigation is not taken up for more than two years and the matter has not seen the light of the day. If it is allowed to continue, the entire construction will come to an end, the people will occupy different floors of the building and thereafter equity will be pleaded by the accused in seeking compounding of the offence, if any. Also giving opportunity to stall the investigation one way or the other i.e, the investigating agency not being in a position to go on with the investigation.
5. Indeed, as and when a complaint is lodged, the first and foremost thing that has to be done is, the investigation should be allowed to be completed and report thereof should be filed. If it is in acceptance of the allegations, naturally it has to -6- be followed by charge sheet, otherwise by filing of 'B' report. In the instant case, no option is given to the first respondent to complete the investigation. Therefore, any further delay in allowing the investigation to be completed would be detrimental to the interest of prosecution. In that view of the matter, this court feel that the present petition is premature in nature. Accordingly, it is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court as and when final report is filed.
Sd/-
JUDGE nd/-