S. MUNIRAJU Vs. SRI. PUTTASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 02.11.2011 in P.C.R. No. 24/2011 passed by the Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act and XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore city and also to quash the entire proceedings. Respondent herein filed a complaint on 31.10.2011 against the petitioner and 4 others for the offences punishable under Section 9, 10, 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the P.C. Act') and also for the offences punishable under Section 120B, 464, 468 and 471 IPC. In the complaint it is alleged that one Mallamma is the owner of lands in survey No. 12/1 measuring 1 acre 15 guntas situated at Kereguddadahalli, Chikkabanawara, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore north taluk. Without the knowledge, consent and behind the back of the original owner Mallamma the petitioner purchased a portion of the land in question from one Keshava Murthy under a registered sale deed dated 04.09.1995. The said Keshava Murthy earlier purchased the same under sale deed dated 19.02.1991. Petitioner being the Member of Legislative Assembly abused his power, got his name mutated in the revenue records on 16.09.2009 with a tacit understanding with respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The alleged sale in favour of petitioner, his vendor and the revenue records are all got up with an intention to defraud the original owner Mallamma who is none other than the mother -in -law of the petitioner. These transactions and the revenue entries are all based on a fabricated partition deed dated 02.07.1976.

(2.) THE Special Judge under the impugned order dated 02.11.2011 referred the matter to the Lokayukta police for investigation and to submit a report under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. Being aggrieved by the impugned order the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) SRI . C.V. Nagesh learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the very initiation of complaint against the petitioner before the special Judge without necessary sanction from the concerned authority is void -ab -initio and as such the impugned order and the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed. The alleged original owner Smt. Mallamma became unsuccessful before the Civil Court, revenue Court and before the concerned authorities. Now the respondent claiming to be the son -in -law of Smt. Mallamma has filed the present complaint with an intention to harass the petitioner and by abusing the due process. Even if the entire allegations made in the complaint are taken as true then the same will not constitute an offence against the petitioner. The special Judge mechanically passed the impugned order directing the Lokayukta police to investigate the matter without application of mind. When the very initiation of the complaint is void -ab -initio then the further orders including the charge sheet filed by the police and the order taking cognizance of the offence are all liable to be set aside. Reliance is placed on number of decisions.