Vivekananda vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 October, 2020

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Vivekananda vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 October, 2020

Bench: Suraj Govindaraj

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

                      BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

        CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4990 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

VIVEKANANDA
S/O SHANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
MUNGNAL, AUARD
BIDAR DISTRICT
KARNATAKA - 585 326                 ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.SRINIVASA V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY ATTIBELE POLICE
       REP. BY S.P.P.
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
       BENGALURU-560 001

2.     MANIKANTAN
       S/O PALANI
       AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
       R/AT NO.364, WEST ROAD
       PREUKOLATHRUR VILLAGE
       AND POST, THANDARA
       M.PATTU TALUK
       THIRUVANNAMALAI
       TAMIL NADU - 600 048       ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)
                                          CRL.P.No.4990/2020

                              2



     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST THIS PETITIONER IN CR
NO.116/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT AT BENGALURU REGISTERED FOR AN OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE    UNDER     SECTION     384   OF    IPC
(SUBSEQUENTLY ADDED 13(1)(d) OF THE PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT) FILED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE.

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

                          ORDER

1. Though there are certain office objections, at request of Sri.Srinivas V., learned counsel for the petitioner, pending the compliance of office objections, the matter is taken up for 'Hearing'.

2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing of the entire proceedings initiated as against the petitioner in Crime No.116/2020 pending on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District at Bengaluru, for the offenses punishable under Section 384 of IPC and also subsequently added provisions of Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. CRL.P.No.4990/2020 3

3. The respondent No.2 had filed a complaint on 02.04.2020 stating that at about 7.30 p.m. while he was driving a lorry from Thiruvenamallai, Tamilnadu to City Market, Bengaluru with a load of Muskmelon, when he reached Attibele checkpost, Hosur - Bengaluru road, he was stopped by a man who was wearing khakhi pant and shirt and shouted at him to pay Rs.1,000/- or else to go back. Complainant pleaded that he is carrying muskmelon, if he take them back, the muskmelon will rot and get spoiled and therefore, he may be permitted to reach Bengaluru market. Despite which, complainant was made to pay Rs.200/- and thereafter, permitted to go to Bengaluru. In this regard, above complaint is filed.

4. Sri.Srinivas V., learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no offence committed under Section 384 of IPC which has been made out by entire reading of the complaint. The complaint was registered by the Attibele police station and not by Deputy Superintendent, Anti Corruption Bureau by notification CRL.P.No.4990/2020 4 No.HD 71 PoSiPa 2016 dated 30.03.2016. On this ground, he seeks for quashing of the entire proceedings.

5. Heard Sri.Srinivas V., learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Perusal of the complaint indicates that there was a demand for money which was made and if not paid, the accused would send back the complainant and his load of muskmelon back to Thiruvenamallai. The complainant has pleaded that if he was sent back to Thiruvenamallai, the muskmelon carried by him would have rotten and injury would be caused to the petitioner. In view thereof, these allegations need to be investigated.

7. As regards the contention that there is bar under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the police inspector to investigate. On enquiry, Sri. Srinivas V., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after registration of complaint, the matter has been transferred to Anti Corruption Bureau and Anti Corruption Bureau is investigating the matter.

CRL.P.No.4990/2020

8. I am of the opinion that under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the bar is only as regards investigation. The present investigation being carried out by the Anti Corruption Bureau, this argument cannot stand.

9. In view thereof, petition stands dismissed. Liberty however is reserved to the accused - petitioner to challenge the charge sheet as and when laid.

Sd/-

JUDGE MH/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court