DR.ASHOK V. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court calling in question order dtd. 7/12/2021 passed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura in P.C.R.No.5 of 2021 referring the matter for investigation under Sec. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., to the Police Inspector of the then Anti Corruption Bureau for offences punishable under Ss. 403, 409, 120-B of the IPC and Ss. 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short).

(2.) The 2nd respondent is the complainant who claims to be a RTI Activist. The complainant appears to have some grievance upon M/s. Srisai Ram Enterprises and several other business entities which are carrying on business in Chitamani Town and regular suppliers to various Government Departments and hostels coming within the Backward Classes Welfare Department. The 2nd respondent sought certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the Backward Classes Welfare Department and the Department had furnished certain information to the 2nd respondent. Based on the documents secured under the Right to Information Act the 2nd respondent does not choose to register a complaint before the jurisdictional police of the wing of the then Anti Corruption Bureau, but chooses to register a private complaint against several officers and four suppliers, the first of whom is the petitioner/accused No.1, District Officer and other four suppliers to the Departments. On registration of the complaint before the learned Sessions Judge, under Sec. 200 of the Cr.P.C., the learned Sessions Judge refers the matter under Sec. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., to the jurisdictional Police of the Anti Corruption Bureau in terms of the order impugned dtd. 7/12/2021 directing report to be filed before 8/2/2022. The reference of the matter by the learned Sessions Judge for conduct of investigation by the Anti Corruption Bureau, is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. This Court in terms of its order dtd. 3/2/2022 grants an interim order of stay which is subsisting even as on date. Therefore, no further investigation has taken place in the case at hand against any of the accused.

(3.) Heard Sri Sandesh J. Chouta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.B. Patil, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.