SRI S MUNIRAJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are heard and disposed of together as certain common issues arise.

(2.) The first of these petitions is filed in the following background. It is stated that one Nagaraj is said to have succeeded to the estate of one Patel Lingegowda. The said Lingegowda was said to have been the owner of land in Sy.No.12/1 of Kereguddadahalli, Chikkabanawara, Bangalore North taluk, measuring about 4 acres and 5 guntas. He is said to have sold one acre out of the said land in favour of one Keshava Murthy. The petitioner is said to have purchased 30 guntas out of the said land from Keshava Murthy, as on 4.9.1995. Thereafter the revenue documents were said to have reflected the same. The petitioner is said to have sold 9 guntas of the said land in favour of one Pushpa Hadali, as on 2.4.1997. He had continued to retain the remaining extent of 21 guntas of land. At this juncture, one Mallamma, claiming to be the widow of Lingegowda, is said to have laid claim to 1 acre and 15 guntas of land bearing survey no. 12/1 of Kereguddadahalli. In this regard, she is said to have instituted multiple proceedings, including a civil suit for permanent injunction, in OS 1367/2008 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore. The said suit, which was contested, was said to have been ultimately dismissed on merits. The said Mallamma is then said to have filed a private complaint against the petitioner and four others, before the Special Judge for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, as on 31.10.2011, through the second respondent, said to be her son-in-law, as her power-of-attorney holder. It was alleged that the petitioner and others had committed offences punishable under Sections 9, 10 and 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (Hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act', for brevity) read with Sections 464,468,471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity). The said court had directed investigation of the case by the Lokayuktha Police. The petitioner was a member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly as on the date of the complaint. A case was said to have been registered in Crime no.55/2011. The petitioner is said to have challenged the institution of the said proceedings before this court in a petition in Criminal Petition no.6358/2011. The same was said to have been disposed of, as on 30.1.2013, on the note that during the pendency of the same - the investigation in the criminal case had been completed and on the basis of the final report, the court below had taken cognizance and had issued process against the petitioner. It was also held that the petitioner had not questioned in the petition, an order said to have been passed by the Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly according permission for filing of the final report, as well as the charge sheet filed in the case. This petition is hence filed to challenge the further proceedings that have resulted in the issuance of process against the petitioner.

(3.) The learned Senior Advocate, Shri C.V.Nagesh, appearing for the counsel for the petitioner contends as follows. The mother-in-law of the second respondent, Smt.Mallamma, who is said to be the aggrieved person, had earlier approached the Lokayukta with the same complaint that is filed before the court below. The Lokayutha, on an investigation of the matter, had, by an order dated 22.6.2008, is said to have arrived at a positive finding that there did not appear to be any nexus whatsoever as between the office which the petitioner held and the acts allegedly committed by him. It was further said to have been held that the complainant could agitate her grievance before the jurisdictional Revenue authorities, in relation to the land in respect of which the controversy was raised and that the complaint before the Lokayuktha was misconceived. It is hence contended that the entertainment of the same complaint by the court below in the face of the order passed by the Lokayuktha is inexplicable and results in grave prejudice to the petitioner. It is contended that the principle of res judicata is squarely attracted and hence the proceedings are an abuse of process and has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. It is further contended that the court below has remained oblivious to the glaring circumstance that the complainant and his mother-in-law had not established any semblance of a right over the land in question and Mallamma had been unsuccessful in establishing that she was either the owner nor was she even in possession of the land in question, in civil proceedings. It is contended that the allegations in the complaint, even if uncontroverted, would not make out any offence allegedly committed by the petitioner and which would be punishable under the provisions of the PC Act. As a result, the court below lacked the jurisdiction to consider the case notwithstanding allegations of offences punishable under the provisions of the IPC. It is hence contended that the impugned order be set aside.