Karnataka High Court
Ms Meghal J Gandhi vs State Of Karnataka on 31 August, 2018
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1565/2016 c/w.
WRIT PETITION Nos.25724-25727/2018
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2973/2017
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2974/2017
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2975/2017
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2976/2017
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2977/2017
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2978/2017
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2979/2017
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2980/2017
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2981/2017
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2982/2017
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2983/2017
Crl.P.No.1565/2016
BETWEEN:
Ms MEGHAL J GANDHI
D/O JYOTIN GANDHI,
AGE 35 YEARS, R/O VEDANT,
VISHWESHWAR NAGAR,
HUBBALI-580032
DHARWAD DISTRICT ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: D.L.N. RAO, SR. ADVOCATE A/W
SRI: ANIRUDH ANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY S.P.
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
2
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: A.S.PONNANNA, AAG A/W. SRI: P GOVINDAN SPL.PP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
FIR FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CR.NO.32/2014 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF XXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J. AND SPL. JUDGE FOR
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, BANGALORE DATED 09.12.2014
AT ANNEXURE-A AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
W.P.Nos.25724-25727/2018
BETWEEN
1. R SHIVAKUMAR
S/O SRI RAJA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
2. SMT. RATHNAMMA
W/O R SHIVAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
BOTH R/AT NO.25, 9TH CROSS,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
3. M/S KUMAR GRANITES & MARBLES
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NO.25, 9TH CROSS,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI P SHIVAKUMAR
4. M/S SOUTH INDIAN STONE INDUSTRIES
NO.25, 9TH CROSS,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRIX
3
SMT. RATHNAMMA ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: H SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
UAS BUILDING, VETERINARY COLLEGE
HEBBL, BANGALORE - 560 020. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: A.S.PONNANNA, AAG A/W. SRI: P GOVINDAN SPL PP)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CRPC PRAYING TO QUASH FIR NO.32/2014 DTD:9.12.2014 AND THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.32/2014 AT ANNEXURE-G FILED
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420 R/W SECTION
120B OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, SECTION 13[1][c][d] R/W
SECTION 13[2] OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988
SECTION 4[1] SECTION 21 R/W SECTION 43 OF THE MINES AND
MINERALS [DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION] ACT, 1957 AND RULES
43 AND 46 OF KARNATAKA MINERALS CONCESSION RULES, 1994 ON
THE FILE OF XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT
INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO AND ETC.
Crl.P.No.2973/2017
BETWEEN:
SMT. NIRMALA
WIFE OF SRI MALAPPA CHALLAMARAD
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KOOKNUR VILLAGE
YELBURGA TALUK
KOPPAL DIST ... PETITIONER
4
(BY SRI: L M CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE A/W
SMT: KUSUMA R.PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
UAS BUILDING,
VETERINARY COLELGE
HEBBAL, BANGALORE CITY
BANGALORE ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: A.S.PONNANNA, AAG A/W. SRI: P GOVINDAN SPL PP)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER IN CR.NO.32/2014 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 420 R/W 120(B) OF IPC ACT, SEC.13(1)(c)(d) R/W 13(2) OF
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, SEC. 4(1), 21 R/W 43 OF MMDR
ACT AND RULE 43, 46 OF KMMCR ON THE FILE OF 23 ADDL. CITY
CIVIL AND S.J., AND SPL. JUDGE, BANGALORE.
Crl.P.No.2974/2017
BETWEEN:
SMT. PARAVVA
WIFE OF SRI HANUMAPPA SABALLI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 7TH WARD
KOOKNUR VILLAGE,
YELBURTA TALUK
KOPPAL DIST. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: L M CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE A/W
SMT: KUSUMA R.PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
5
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
UAS BUILDING,
VETERINARY COLELGE
HEBBAL, BANGALORE CITY
BENGALURU. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: A.S.PONNANNA, AAG A/W. SRI: P GOVINDAN SPL PP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER IN CR.NO.32/2014 FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 420 R/W 120(B)
OF IPC ACT, SEC.13(1)(c)(d) R/W 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT, SEC.4(1),21 R/W 43 OF MMDR ACT AND RULE
43,46 OF KMMCR ON THE FILE OF 23 ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., AND
SPL. JUDGE FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, BANGALORE.
Crl.P.No.2975/2017
BETWEEN:
SRI. MANGLESH
S/O SRI SHIVAPPA MANGALORE
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT NEAR AMBEDKAR CIRCLE, SANJAYNAGAR,
KUKNOOR VILLAGE, YELBURGA TALUK
KOPPAL DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: L M CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE A/W
SMT: KUSUMA R.PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
6
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
UAS BUILDING, VETERINARY COLLEGE
HEBBAL BANGALORE CITY
BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: A.S.PONNANNA, AAG A/W SRI: P GOVINDAN SPL PP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.32/2014 FILED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S
420 R/W 120(B) OF IPC ACT, 1860, SEC.13(1)(c)(d) R/W 13(2) OF
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, SEC.4(1),21 R/W SEC.43 OF
MMDR ACT, 1957 AND RULES 43 AND 46 OF KMMC RULES, 1994 ON
THE FILE OF THE 23RD ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,
BENGALURU CITY.
Crl.P.No.2976/2017
BETWEEN
SRI. GUDNAYYA DEVAGANMATH
S/O. BASAIAH DEVANAGANA MATH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT GUDNAYYA MATH VILLAGE,
YELBURGA TALUK,
KOPPAL DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: L M CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE A/W
SMT: KUSUMA R.PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SUPRINTENDENT OF POLICE,
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
UAS BUILDING, VETERINARY COLLEGE,
HEBBAL, BANGALORE CITY,
7
BANGALORE ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: A.S.PONNANNA, AAG A/W SRI: P GOVINDAN SPL PP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER IN CR.NO.32/2014 FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 420 R/W 120(B)
OF IPC ACT, SEC.13(1)(c)(d) R/W 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT, SEC.4(1),21 R/W 43 OF MMDR ACT AND RULE
43,46 OF KMMCR ON THE FILE OF 23 ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., AND
SPL. JUDGE FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, BANGALORE.
Crl.P.No.2977/2017
BETWEEN
SRI. YELLAPPA @ KATAGAR
SON OF SRI BALOJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
RESIDING KOOKNUR VILLAGE
YELBURGA TALUK
KOPPAL DIST ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: L M CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE A/W
SMT: KUSUMA R.PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
UAS BUILDING, VETERINARY COLLEGE
HEBBAL BANGALORE CITY
BENGALURU ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: A.S.PONNANNA, AAG A/W. SRI: P GOVINDAN SPL PP)
8
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER IN CR.NO.32/2014 FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 420 R/W 120(B)
OF IPC ACT, SEC.13(1)(c)(d) R/W 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT, SEC.4(1),21 R/W 43 OF MMDR ACT AND RULE
43,46 OF KMMCR ON THE FILE OF 23 ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., AND
SPL. JUDGE FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, BANGALORE.
Crl.P.No.2978/2017
BETWEEN
SRI. SHAMBULINGAPPA JOLADA
SON OF SHIVARUDRAPPA JOLADA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESIDING AT KUKNOOR VILLAGE
YELABURGA TLAUK
KOPPAL DIST ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: L M CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE A/W
SMT: KUSUMA R.PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
UAS BUILDING,
VETERINARY COLLEGE
HEBBAL BANGALORE CITY
BENGALURU ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: A.S.PONNANNA, AAG A/W SRI: P GOVINDAN SPL PP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.32/2014 FILED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S
420 R/W 120(B) OF IPC ACT, 1860, SEC.13(1)(c)(d) R/W 13(2) OF
9
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, SEC.4(1),21 R/W SEC.43 OF
MMDR ACT, 1957 AND RULES 43 AND 46 OF KMMC RULES, 1994 ON
THE FILE OF THE 23RD ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,
BENGALURU CITY.
Crl.P.No.2979/2017
BETWEEN
SRI. MALLIKARJUNAGOUDA SANGANAGOUDA PATIL
@ M.S.PATIL
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT ILAKAL TOWN
BAGALKOT DISTRICT ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: L M CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE A/W
SMT: KUSUMA R.PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
UAS BUILDING, VETERINARY COLLEGE
HEBBAL BANGALORE CITY
BENGALURU ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: A.S.PONNANNA, AAG A/W SRI: P GOVINDAN SPL PP)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER IN CR.NO.32/2014 FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 420 R/W 120(B)
OF IPC ACT, SEC.13(1)(c)(d) R/W 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT, SEC.4(1),21 R/W 43 OF MMDR ACT AND RULE
43,46 OF KMMCR ON THE FILE OF 23 ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., AND
SPL. JUDGE FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, BANGALORE.
10
Crl.P.No.2980/2017
BETWEEN
SRI. SIDDALINGAYYA
SON OF SANGAYYA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RESIDING AT GUDNEPPAMATHA
KUKNOOR-583 232
YELBURGA TALUK
KOPPAL DIST
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: L M CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE A/W
SMT: KUSUMA R.PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
UAS BUILDING, VETERINARY COLELGE
HEBBAL BANGALORE CITY
BANGALORE
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: A.S.PONNANNA, AAG A/W
SRI: P GOVINDAN SPL PP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER IN CR.NO.32/2014 FILED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420
R/W 120(B) OF IPC AND SEC. 13(1)(c)(d) R/W 13(2) OF P.C. ACT AND
SEC. 4(1) AND 21 R/W 43 OF M.M.D.R. ACT AND RULE 43 AND 46 OF
K.M.M.C. RULE ON THE FILE OF XXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J. AND
SPL. JUDGE, BENGALURU, FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,
BANGALORE.
11
Crl.P.No.2981/2017
BETWEEN
SRI. DODDAPPA
S/O. ERAPPA BHAVIKATTI,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT ANNADANESHWARA NAGAR,
WARD NO 3,
NEAR POLICE STATION,
KUKNOOR VILLAGE,
YELBURGA TALUK,
KOPPAL DISTRICT
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: L M CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE A/W
SMT: KUSUMA R.PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SUPRINTENDENT OF POLICE,
SPECIAL INVESTGATION TEAM
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
UAS BUILDING, VETERINARY COLLEGE,
HEBBAL, BANGALORE CITY,
BANGALORE
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: A.S.PONNANNA, AAG A/W
SRI: P GOVINDAN SPL PP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER IN CR.NO.32/2014 FILED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420
R/W 120(B) OF IPC AND SEC. 13(1)(c)(d) R/W 13(2) OF P.C. ACT AND
SEC. 4(1) AND 21 R/W 43 OF M.M.D.R. ACT AND RULE 43 AND 46 OF
12
K.M.M.C. RULE ON THE FILE OF XXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J. AND
SPL. JUDGE, BENGALURU, FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,
BANGALORE..
Crl.P.No.2982/2017
BETWEEN
SRI. GUDNAYYA CHANNAYYA GUDNYAPPANA MATA
S/O. SRI. CHANNAYYA GUDNYAPPANA MATA,
AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 45, 19TH WARD,
GUDNYAPPANA MATA VILLAGE,
YELBURGA TALUK,
KOPPAL DISTRICT
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: L M CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE A/W
SMT: KUSUMA R.PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
UAS BUILDING, VETERINARY COLLEGE,
HEBBAL, BANGALORE CITY,
BANGALORE
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: A.S.PONNANNA, AAG A/W
SRI: P GOVINDAN SPL PP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER IN CR.NO.32/2014 FILED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 420
R/W 120(B) OF IPC AND SEC. 13(1)(c)(d) R/W 13(2) OF P.C. ACT AND
13
SEC. 4(1) AND 21 R/W 43 OF M.M.D.R. ACT AND RULE 43 AND 46 OF
K.M.M.C. RULE ON THE FILE OF XXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J. AND
SPL. JUDGE, BENGALURU FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,
BANGALORE.
Crl.P.No.2983/2017
BETWEEN
SRI. ABDUL REHMAN SAB
S/O. SRI. MARDAN SAB,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 214,
ANNADANESHWARA NAGAR,
MAIN BAZAAR,
KUKNOOR, YELBURGA TALUK,
KOPPAL DISTRICT
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: L M CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE A/W
SMT: KUSUMA R.PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
UAS BUILDING, VETERINARY COLLEGE,
HEBBAL, BANGALORE CITY,
BANGALORE
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: A.S.PONNANNA, AAG A/W
SRI: P GOVINDAN SPL PP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER IN CR.NO.32/2014 FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 420 R/W 120(B)
OF IPC ACT, SEC.13(1)(c)(d) R/W 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF
14
CORRUPTION ACT, SEC.4(1),21 R/W 43 OF MMDR ACT AND RULE
43,46 OF KMMCR ON THE FILE OF 23 ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., AND
SPL. JUDGE, FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, BANGALORE.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS CONNECTED WITH WRIT
PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON
08.08.2018 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS
DAY, JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA. J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
In this batch of petitions, the petitioners have sought for a common relief under section 482 of Cr.P.C./Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR in Crime No.32/2014 registered by the respondent-Special Investigation Team ("SIT" for short) in so far as the petitioners are concerned for the offence punishable under section 420 r/w. section 120B of Indian Penal Code, section 13(1)(c)(d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, sections 4(1), 21 read with section 43 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 ("MMDR Act" for short) and Rules 43 and 46 of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1994 ("KMMC Rules"
for short) pending on the file of the XXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act.15
2. Petitioners in all the above cases are the owners of different extent of patta lands described in the table as under:
PÀÄPÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ & ¸ÀÄvÀª Û ÀÄÄvÀÛ PÀ®Äè UÀt PÁéjUÀ¼À °ÃeïzÁgÀgÀ / ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀ «ªÀgÀ C.£ÀA. ºÉ¸g À ÀÄ & «¼Á¸À UÀtU  ÁjPÉ ¸ÀܼU À ¼ À À «ªÀgÀ ¸ÀªÉÃð £ÀA.
1. ²æà ªÉÄÃWÀ¯ï eÉÆÃw£À¨ÁAiÀiï ZÉÆÃmÁ¯Á® UÀÄzÉߥÀà£À ªÀÄoÀzÀ ºÀwg Û À 19/04.
UÁA¢ü, UÁA¢ü PÀA¥À¤, PÀÄPÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ (d«ÄãÀÄ 10/02. ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ) 10/03
2. 1) ²æà zÁåªÀÄtÚ CqÀ«¨sÁ« ¸Á: UÁªÀgÁ¼À UÁªÀgÁ¼À gÀ¸,ÉÛ PÀÄPÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ 179.
2) ²æà C§ÄÝ® gÀ»ªÀiÁ£À¸Á§ vÀ¼PÀ À¯ï ¸Á: PÀÄPÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ (d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ)
3. ²æà ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÃÉ ±À¥Àà PÁéj ¸Á: PÀÄPÀ£ÀÆgÀ UÁªÀgÁ¼À gÀ¸,ÉÛ PÀÄPÀ£ÀÆgÀ 177/2.
4. ²æà AiÀÄ®è¥Àà PÀlUÀgï ¸Á: PÀÄPÀ£ÀÆgÀ UÁªÀgÁ¼À gÀ¸,ÉÛ PÀÄPÀ£ÀÆgÀ 4/6/1.
5/2.
5. ²æà ªÀÄw CA§Ä UÀAqÀ PÉ. ªÀÄt dªÀiï PÀA¥À¤ ¸Á: UÁªÀgÁ¼À gÀ¸,ÉÛ PÀÄPÀ£ÀÆgÀ 6/2.
E¼ÀP¯À ï 6/3.
6/4.
4/7.
6. 1) ²æà ªÉAPÀmÃÉ ±À vÀAzÉ ¸ÀÄAzÀg£
À ÁAiÀÄÄØ UÁªÀgÁ¼À gÀ¸,ÉÛ PÀÄPÀ£ÀÆgÀ 189/1.
2) ²æà JA.«. ¨Á§Ä vÀAzÉ JA. ¸ÀÄAzÀg£ À ÁAiÀÄÄØ, 162/1.
§¼Áîj ¨Á§Ä, UÁæ£ÉÊmïì PÀA. ¸Á: PÀÄPÀ£ÀÆgÀ (d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ)
7. ²æà Dgï. ²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgÀ vÀAzÉ gÁdtÚ±ÉnÖ, PÀĪÀiÁgÀ UÁªÀgÁ¼À gÀ¸,ÉÛ PÀÄPÀ£ÀÆgÀ 191/1, 124/3, UÁæ£ÉÊmï PÀA¥À¤ ¸Á: PÀÄPÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ. 192. 124/2.
124/E, 192/2 200/2.207/D 208/C.144/E. 114/D.114/F
8. ²æà «ÃgÀtÚ vÀAzÉ gÀUq À ¥ À Àà §AqÁj ¸Á: PÀÄPÀ£ÀÆgÀ UÀÄzÉߥÀ࣪ À o À À gÀ¸ÉÛ 148/2.
9. 1) ²æà f.n. ¥ÀA¥ÁªÀw UÁæ£ÉÊmï PÀA. §¼Áîj. UÁªÀgÁ¼À gÀ¸ÉÛ PÀÄPÀ£ÀÆgÀ 162/1,
2) ²æêÀÄw ¤ªÀÄð¯Á UÀAqÀ ªÀÄ®è¥Àà ZÀ¼ÀîªÀÄgÀzÀ 162/2/©1 (d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ)
3) ²æêÀÄw ¥ÁgÀªÀé UÀAqÀ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄ¥Àà ±Á姽î (d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ)
10. 1) ²æà UÀÄzÉßAiÀÄå zÉêÀUÀtªÀÄoÀ ¸Á: UÀÄzÉߥÀ࣪ À ÀÄoÀ. £ÀªÉÇÃzÀAiÀÄ ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ ºÀwg Û À 42/2.
2) ²æà §¸ÀAiÀÄå vÀAzÉ UÀÄzÉßAiÀÄå zÉêÀUtÀ ªÀÄoÀ ¸Á:
UÀÄzÉߥÀ࣪ À ÀÄoÀ (d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ)
11. 1) ²æà ²ªÀ¥Àà §AqÁj ¸Á: PÀÄPÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ w¥Éàg¸ À £ À Á¼À gÀ¸ÉÛ 7.
2) ²æà UÀÄzÉßAiÀÄå vÀAzÉ ZÀ£ÀßAiÀÄå ¸Á: UÀÄzÉߥÀ࣪À ÀÄoÀ 16 (d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ)
12. 1) ²æà £ÁUÀAiÀÄå PÁéj ¸Á: UÀÄzÉߥÀà£ÀªÀÄoÀ UÀÄzÉߥÀ࣪ À ÀÄoÀzÀ ºÀwg Û À 85.
2) ²æà ¹zÀÝ°AUÀAiÀÄå vÀAzÉ ¸ÀAUÀAiÀÄå EAUÀ¼z À ½À î (d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ)
13. 1) ²æà ºÀg¥ À £ À º À ½ À î UÁæ£ÉÊmï PÀA¥À¤ ¸Á: PÀÄPÀ£Æ À gÀÄ. UÁªÀgÁ¼À gÀ¸ÉÛ 15/1/2.
2) ²æà PÀĨÉÃgÀ¥Àà vÀAzÉ AiÀĪÀÄ£À¥Àà vÁA§æUÀÄAr 21/1.
(d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ) 47/2.
3) ²æà ¸ÀvÀå£ÁgÁAiÀÄt vÀAzÉ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¥Àà ºÀg¥À £ À º À ½ À î (d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ)
4) ²æà ªÀÄÈvÀÄåAdAiÀÄå vÀAzÉ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¥Àà ºÀg¥À £ À º À ½ À î (d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ)
14. ²æà ªÀÄ°èPÁdÄð£ÀUËqÀ PÁéj ¸Á: vÀ¼PÀ ¯ À ï w¥Ààg¸ À £ À Á¼À gÀ¸ÉÛ 81/1.
15. ²æà ªÀÄ®è¥Àà vÀAzÉ zÉÆqÀ¤ Ø AUÀ¥Àà PÀªÀ®ÆgÀ ¸Á: UÉÆÃgÀ¯PÉ ÉÆ¥Àà gÀ¸ÉÛ 208/11. PÀÄPÀ£ÀÆgÀ
16. ²æà ±ÀA§tÚ eÉÆüÀzÀ ¸Á: PÀÄPÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ®UÉÃj gÀ¸ÉÛ. 355/2.
17. ²æà ¥ÉÃæ ªÀÄZÀAzÀæ vÀAzÉ ¨sg À ª À ÀiÁ® eÉÊ£À, ¥Àzð sÀ ªÀiÁ£À UÀÄzÉߥÀ࣪ À ÀÄoÀ §®§¢AiÀÄ 149/E. UÁæ£ÉÊmï PÀA¥À¤, PÀÄPÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ KjAiÀiÁzÀ°è 149/2
18. 1) ²æà gÁåªÀtQ ±ÉlÖgï UÁæ£ÉÊmïì ¸Á: PÀÄPÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ. w¥Ààg¸À £ À Á¼À gÀ¸ÉÛ 148/3.
2) ²æà ±ÀgÀt¥Àà vÀAzÉ «ÃgÀ¨sz À ¥
Àæ Àà §ArºÁ¼À ¸Á: 148/4.
PÀÄPÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ (d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ) 148/5.
148/6.
19. ²æà C§ÄÝ®¸Á§ vÀ¼PÀ ¯
À ï ¸Á: PÀÄPÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ UÁªÀgÁ¼À gÀ¸,ÉÛ PÀÄPÀ£ÀÆgÀ. 179.
20. ²æà ±ÀA§tÚ eÉÆüÀzÀ ¸Á: PÀÄPÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ AiÀÄrAiÀiÁ¥ÀÆgÀ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ 97 (104/5)
»AzÉ.
21. 1) ²æà §¸À£U À ËqÀ vÀAzÉ ¤AUÀ£UÀ ËqÀ vÉÆArºÁ¼À UÀÄzÉߥÀ࣪
À ÀÄoÀzÀ ¥ÁzÀUÀnÖ 64/2.
¸Á: PÀÄPÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ ºÀwgÛ À
2) ²æà ¤AUÀ£U À ËqÀ vÉÆArºÁ¼À (d«ÄãÀÄ
ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ)
22. 1) ²æà «gÉñÀ¥Àà ªÀuÃÉ ðPÀgï ¸Á: PÀÄPÀ£ÀÆgÀ UÀÄzÉߥÀ࣪
À ÀÄoÀzÀ ¥ÁzÀUÀnÖ 63/1
2) ²æà ¸ÀÄgÉñÀ ªÀuÃÉ ðPÀgï ¸Á: PÀÄPÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ ºÀwgÛ À 63/C,
(d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ) 64/3.
65/2.
23. 1) ²æà dUÀ£ÁßxÀ PÁéj ¸Á: E¼ÀP¯ À ï UÀÄzÉߥÀ࣪
À ÀÄoÀzÀ ¥ÁzÀUÀnÖ 80.
2) ²æà zÉÆqÀzØ ÃÉ ªÀ¥Àà vÀAzÉ PÀ¼PÀ ¥ À Àà ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgg À ÀÄ ºÀwgÛ À (d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ)
24. 1) ²æà £ÁUÀ¥Àà ¢ªÀlgï ¸Á: PÀÄPÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ UÉÆÃgÀ¯PÉ ÉÆ¥Àà gÀ¸ÉÛ. 348/E.
2) ²æà zÉÆqÀ¥Ø Àà vÀAzÉ FgÀ¥Àà ¨Á«PÀnÖ (d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ)
25. 1) ²æà ±ÀgÀt¥Àà «ÃgÀ¨z sÀ ¥ Àæ Àà §ArºÁ¼À ¸Á: UÉÆÃgÀ¯PÉ ÉÆ¥Àà gÀ¸ÉÛ. 333/1/3.
PˀPˣˮgˀ
2) ²æà «gÀÄ¥ÁPÀ¥ ë Àà ¥À¯ÃÉè zÀ ¸Á: PÀÄPÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ. (d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ)
26. ²æà JA.J¸ï ¥ÁnÃ¯ï ¸Á: E¼ÀP¯ À ï UÉÆÃgÀ¯PÉ ÉÆ¥Àà gÀ¸ÉÛ 348/C. 17
3. According to the petitioners, they have executed a perpetual consent in favour of different Mining Companies. The said Companies have been carrying on quarrying operation and extraction of granite stones and its transportation by obtaining license and permit from the Government and the concerned Department. Lokayukta Police, Koppal, registered a suo-motu complaint against the petitioners in Crime No.4/2014. Petitioners challenged the same before this court. This court ordered for stay of proceedings. During the operation of stay, the FIR was transferred to the first respondent -SIT who in turn registered a fresh FIR in Crime No.32/2014.
4(i). The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners having issued consent in favour of different Companies to carry on quarrying operations in their lands, no criminal case or FIR could have been registered against the petitioners for the alleged violation of the conditions of lease or contravention of the statutory rules. Petitioners having issued their consent, they are not involved in any of the quarrying 18 activity or transportation of minerals. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioners is wholly illegal and abuse of process of court.
4(ii) In the petitions, the petitioners have averred with regard to the respective extent of lands leased by them to the respective lessees and have further taken up a plea that the petitioners being the private parties, by virtue of section 7 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, Lokayukta officials have no jurisdiction to register the FIR relating to private quarrying lessees. In view of section 8 of the said Act, the Lokayukta cannot investigate into a complaint involving an allegation made after the expiry of five years from the date on which the action complained against is alleged to have taken place. It is contended that in all these cases the alleged illegalities are alleged to have been committed during the period from 1990- 2014 whereas FIR has been registered in the year 2014; therefore, the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to investigate into the matter.
4(iii) Nextly, it is contended that as per section 9(2) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, the Lokayukta can proceed to 19 investigate only on the receipt of the complaint accompanied by an affidavit. In the instant cases, complaints are not accompanied by such affidavits. The allegations made in the complaints do not attract the ingredients of any of the offences alleged against the petitioners. Except declaring that the petitioners are involved in "fraudulent misappropriation" and have acted with "malafide intention", no specific allegations are made against the petitioners warranting criminal investigation against them. Once the land owners have issued consent, there is no involvement of the land owners in the quarrying activities. Therefore, registration of the FIR and investigation therein is an abuse of process of court and hence, liable to be set-aside.
5(i). A detailed statement of objections/counter is filed by the respondent, opposing the petition, inter alia contending that on the request of Hon'ble Lokayukta, Cr.No.4/2014 was transferred to Special Investigating Team, Karnataka Lokayukta for further investigation. The competent authority has not issued any license or working permission to the petitioners for carrying on quarrying activities in the lands in question. The 20 petitioners have not taken working permission from the Department of Mines and Geology, Koppal, which is required as per Government Notification No.CI.350.MMN.2013 dated 05.03.2014. Hence, the quarrying operations carried on in the properties owned by the petitioners is illegal and hence, FIR was registered against the petitioners in Cr.No.4/2014.
5(ii). In so far as the jurisdiction of the SIT to investigate into the alleged offences under MMDR Act and KMMC Rules is concerned, it is contended that by virtue of Government Notification bearing No.CI.21.MMN(2).2014 dated 21.01.2014, Government of Karnataka authorized the officers specified in column (2) thereof and the officers of the Police Department to initiate criminal proceedings. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the respondent has no jurisdiction to register/investigate the cases under MMDR Act/KMMC Rules is untenable.
5(iii). It is further contended that the offences under section 4(1) read with section 21 of the MMDR Act is a cognizable offence. The Investigating Officer has obtained 21 authorization under section 166 of Cr.P.C. from the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Raichur and conducted spot mahazar. Therefore, there is no illegality either in the registration of the FIR or in the competence of the SIT to investigate into the alleged offences and thus, the respondent has sought to reject the petition.
6. In the light of the above contentions, the points that arise for consideration are as under:
(1) Whether the SIT, Karnataka Lokayukta is authorized to register the FIR and to investigate into the alleged offences?
(2) Whether the allegations made against the petitioners prima facie constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged against them in the FIR?
7. Point No.1:
The material on record indicates that Government of Karnataka referred several issues concerning illegal mining in the State to the Hon'ble Karnataka Lokayukta for investigation under 22 section 7(2-A) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act 1984 vide its order dated 12.03.2007 and 09.09.2008. Pursuant to the second report of the Hon'ble Lokayukta dated 27.07.2011, the State Government constituted a High Level Committee for implementation of the recommendations and observations made in the Lokayukta Report in the Government Order dated 18.08.2011.
8. The Hon'ble Lokayukta has dealt with a large number of cases pertaining to illegal mining issues in several Chapters in the second report dated 27-7-2011 and has recommended further investigations on several issues by competent agencies. The High Level Committee after examining the detailed investigation report part - II recommended various measures and actions to be taken by the State Government. One of the recommendations of the High Level Committee was to form a Special Investigation Team (SIT). Accordingly a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the chairmanship of Sri.Deepak Sharma, Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, an inter-disciplinary team of experts comprising of Heads of various 23 Departments was constituted vide order dated 09.01.2012 to carry out further investigation in a total of 26 issues pertaining to illegal mining in the State.
9. In the meanwhile, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 16.09.2013 in an Interlocutory Application No.189 of Writ Petition 562/2009 has permitted the CBI to refer the matters with respect to the exporters who had exported less than 50,000 MTs and were not enquired into in the preliminary enquiry and also has permitted the CBI to refer the cases of exporters who had exported less than 50,000 MTs of iron ore without valid permits to refer to the Government of Karnataka for taking further necessary action under the relevant laws as recommended by the Central Empowered Committee report dated 5-9-2012.
10. Accordingly, the Government took a Cabinet decision to refer all the issues mentioned in the annexure to Government Order No:CI 282 MMM 2011 dated 09.01.2012 to the Hon'ble Lokayukta for further investigation by the Lokayukta Police except three issues. Accordingly, the Government issued order 24 NO.CI.282:MMM.2011(P), Bengaluru dated 22.11.2013 which reads as follows:
GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.CI.282:MMM.2011(P), BENGALURU, DATED:22.11.2013 The State Government, after considering the recommendations of Hon'ble Lokayukta in the second part of the report dated: 27-7-2011 for cases where there is need for further enquiry, and as per the Order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated: 16.09.2013 in I.A.No.189 of Writ Petition No.562/2009, The Government in Suppression of the earlier orders No.CI 282 MMM 2011 Dated:09.01.2012 and 25.06.2012 hereby entrusts such cases enumerated comprehensively in the Annexure-A of this Government Order for detailed investigation to the Hon'ble Karnataka Lokayukta for further investigation by the Lokayukta Police and to proceed with criminal prosecutions if necessary.
BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA (K.VENKATESH), Under Secretary to Government (Mines) (I/c) Commerce & Industries Department.
11. As could be seen in Annexure-'A' appended to the said order, the issues referred to the Hon'ble Lokayukta for further investigation are listed therein. The illegalities pertaining to the petitioners herein find mention in the said Annexure-'A'. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the SIT, Karnataka Lokayukta has no jurisdiction 25 to register FIR and investigate into the alleged offences is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, said contention is rejected.
12. In so far as the investigation into the offences under the provisions of the MMDR Act is concerned, it is also a matter on record that the registration of the FIR in Crime No.32/2014 was challenged by one of the accused Linganagouda and others in Criminal Petition Nos.5684/2015, 5686/2015, 5945/2015 and 6689/2015. A prayer was made therein for quashing the entire proceedings and FIR in Crime No.32/2014. This court vide order dated 28.03.2017 quashed the entire proceedings and FIR in Crime No.32/2014. Aggrieved by the said order, the SIT, Karnataka Lokayukta preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) Nos.6244-6251 of 2017 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) has passed an order in Criminal Appeal Nos.1777-1784/2017 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.6244- 6251 of 2017) on 12.10.2017 setting aside the order passed by this Court which reads as under:
26
"The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, filed a complaint dated 30.05.2014 addressed to Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station, making allegations of illegal mining by certain private persons in collusion with the public servants. When the said allegation was being investigated, the respondents filed a petition before the High Court under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 challenging the proceedings on the ground that the cognizance of the offence under section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,1957 can be taken only a complaint of a specifically authorized person. This plea has been upheld by the High Court and proceedings quashed.
We find that the stage of cognizance will arise only after investigation is completed and there is no bar to the investigation being carried out by the Lokayukta Police on the complaint in question particularly when the allegation include offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In this view of matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeals are allowed. The concerned Police may carry out the investigation and proceed in accordance with law."
In the light of the above order, even the contention urged by the petitioners that the SIT has no jurisdiction to register the FIR and investigate into the alleged offences is liable to be rejected.
27
13. POINT No.2:
Coming to the allegations made against the petitioners constituting the offences alleged against them, on careful reading of the FIR, it is noticed that before lodging the complaint, a preliminary enquiry is conducted and a source report was prepared and it was ascertained that illegal quarrying activity, extraction of granite and transportation was being carried on in the landed properties owned by the petitioners herein. There is a specific allegation in the charge-sheet that the said activities were being carried on without valid license from the Mines and Geology Department, Koppal. There are also allegations that in some cases, permits were misused and on the strength of the said permits, quarrying activities were taking place in the Government lands. The records discloses that a joint survey was conducted by the Director of Mines and Geology and Revenue Department and it was prima facie ascertained that in the properties described in the schedule above, the aforesaid illegal quarrying activities were committed. The relevant revenue extracts were also produced before the Court to show that the petitioners herein were holding the said lands. Even 28 though the petitioners have contended that once the petitioners having executed consent in favour of various Companies and the lessees, they are not liable for the activities carried on in the said properties. The said contention cannot be accepted at this juncture, in the wake of the allegation contained in the charge-
sheet that the quarrying activities were carried on in the properties without valid license in connivance with the land owners.
14. It is now well settled that the inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C., can be exercised to give effect to an order under the Code to prevent abuse of process of the court and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is also well settled that the inherent powers under this provision should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy; more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true 29 perspective without sufficient material. It is a settled proposition that the wholesome power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding only when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.
15. In MACHAVRAO JIWAJIRAO SCINDIA & Others vs. SAMBHAJIRAO CHANDROJIRAO ANGRE & Others reported in 1988 Cri.L.J. 853, it is held that:
"The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue."
16. In the instant case, as already stated above, the criminal action is initiated after due enquiry based on the source report which prima facie makes out serious violation and 30 contravention of the statutes. The Magnitude of the transactions and the ramification of the offences are required to be unearthed in a thorough and penetrating investigation. On careful consideration of the allegations made in the charge-sheet and the material produced by the respondent before the Court, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the FIR registered against the petitioners and the investigation initiated thereon. The allegations made in the FIR prima facie make out ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners. The SIT is duly authorized and competent to investigate into the matter. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if the alleged violations are investigated by the respondent. The exact role played by each of the petitioners could be ascertained only after investigation. If the investigation leads to the final opinion that the alleged offences are committed without the knowledge and connivance of the petitioners, the charges against the petitioners would naturally be dropped. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners have resulted in abuse of process of court is ill-founded. The petitioners have failed to make out any justifiable ground to 31 quash the FIR and the consequent investigation. As a result, the petitions are liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, all the above petitions are hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bss.