B.G. PRAKASH KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in these writ petitions pray for quashing the report of the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-A, Dated 2.11.2011 and the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent based on the report of the 3rd respondent report vide Annexure-B, dated 03.11.2011 and FIR lodged by the 4th respondent vide Annexure-C, dated 04.11.2011 vide FIR No.4/11 and the report of the 4th respondent vide Annexure-D, dated 07.12.2011 and the order passed by the 5th respondent vide Annexure-F, dated 07.12.2011 and to quash the entire proceedings in the above said matter pending before the 6th respondent.

(2.) The facts leading to this case are that the petitioners are the engineers working under the Office of the first respondent. It is stated that at the relevant point of time they were working as engineers in Western Region Gandhinagar, Malleshwaram, Rajarajeshwari Nagar to carryout the work assigned by the first respondent for the period 2008-09 to 2011 12. On a complaint made regarding irregularities in carrying out the public works, a case was referred to the third respondent, and a report has been submitted by him as per Annexure-A and on the said report the Commissioner, BBMP the first respondent registered a case with the 4th respondent-Inspector General of Police, BMTF( Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force) vide Annexure-B. In pursuance of the directions issued by the second respondent an FIR was registered by the fourth respondent in Crime No.4/11 dated 04.11.2011 in the BMTF Police station, Bangalore City, for the offences punishable under Section 420, 406, 409, 465, 468, 471, 477(a) r/w Section 120(B) of IPC and Under Section 23 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999, against the persons to ascertain and identify and also the amount cheated/misappropriated vide Annexure-C. Based on the report of the third respondent and also on the basis of complaint lodged by the second respondent, the fourth respondent made an elaborate investigation and submitted a report to the Government. Much less no memos or notices have been issued to them or imposed fine for any lapse on their part. Despite the same, it is the first and fourth respondents unnecessarily are harassing these petitioners. Hence petitioners challenge Annexures E and F. Annexure-E dated 28.11.2011 is modified by Annexure-F dated 07.12.2011.On the basis of the complaint registered for the purpose of investigation, it has been handed over to CID, Bangalore.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since this offence falls under the provisions of IPC, 4th respondent has no jurisdiction to register the case and Government cannot hand over the case to the CID for investigation. In support of his submission learned counsel refers to Annexure-G the Government order dated 02.02.2013 in No. UDD 349 MNU 2011 Bangalore, in which it is stated that: