Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In all these petitions, prayer is for calling for the records relating to the issue of the order/complaint bearing No.Gra.Aa.Pa.35 Enq 2015, Bengaluru, dated 3.10.2016 (Annexure-

A) of respondent No.1 and FIR dated 7.11.2016 in Crime No.3/2016 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal and quash the same.

2. The petitioners in these batch of writ petitions are accused Nos.21, 4, 1, 23, 5, 26, 27, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 18, 20, 30, 10, 12, 29, 3, 2 and 16 in Crime No.3/2016 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal. They were working in different capacities in Panchayat Raj Engineering Division of Koppal District at various of points of time between 21.09.2013 and 2016.

3. As per the proceedings of Government of Karnataka bearing No. Gra.Aa.Pa.35 Enq 2015, Bengaluru, dated 3.10.2016, the complaint was lodged for various offences punishable under IPC as well as under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and based on the same, case in Crime No.3/2016 was registered by the Anti-

Corruption Bureau (ACB) Police Station, Koppal Taluk, Koppal District. The petitioners are aggrieved by complaint as well as registration of the case pursuant to the same by the ACB Police against them and several others.

Therefore, the case registered by the ACB, Koppal in Crime No.3/2016 is illegal.

8. Learned counsel Sri. S.S. Yadrami, appearing for the petitioner in WP No.107657/2017, apart from above grounds contended that accused No.16 had reported for duty in Koppal on 28.2.2014 and therefore, the case registered as against him is wholly misconceived. He also submitted that the period mentioned in the FIR in respect of commission of irregularities and bribery is between 21.9.2013 and 6.2.2014 and since the petitioner (Accused No.16) had reported for duty only on 28.2.2014, he could not be prosecuted for the irregularities which had taken place much before he reporting for duty at Koppal.

9. Sri. Shivaraj Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner (Accused No.2) in WP No. 65259/2016 submitted that the complaint does not give the details of the irregularities which occurred in the various taluks of Koppal and therefore, for lack of details, the petitioner could not have been prosecuted.

10. Sri. Santosh B Malagoudar, learned standing counsel appearing for the Investigating Agency, per contra, took me through the complaint and submitted that the allegations pursuant to the irregularities did not pertain only for the period between 21.9.2013 and 6.2.2014 and project work was continued even thereafter and, further, payments were made subsequent to 6.2.2014 by fabricating measurement books and issuing cheques etc. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioners, who joined even subsequent to 6.2.2014 for duty in Koppal were also culpable and details could be unearthed only during the investigation. He contended that the complaint lodged clearly makes out the ingredients of cognizable offences and therefore, there is no error or illegality in the investigating agency registering the case and proceeding with the investigation. He further submitted that once the FIR registered is based on materials which disclose the commission of cognizable offence, preliminary enquiry or investigation held by the Upa-lokayukta pales into insignificance and any error in the proceedings held by the Upa-lokayukta will have no bearing on the case which was registered against the petitioners/accused. He further submits that there is a proper government order directing the lodging of the complaint and pursuant to the same, complaint was lodged and case was registered.