MURALIDHAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading up to this petition are stated to be as follows.

(2.) The learned Senior Advocate, Shri Udaya Holla, appearing for the counsel for the petitioner would contend that the criminal proceedings are wholly misconceived. The allotment of the site in favour of the petitioner was not made in secrecy, it was allotted in accordance with Rule 4 of the KUDA Rules and after obtaining permission from the Government. The allegation of conspiracy and criminal breach of trust or criminal misappropriation are hence untenable and mischievous.

(3.) The respondent - CBI has entered appearance through counsel and has filed statement of objections to contend that the present petition is misconceived and premature since the court below is yet to take cognizance of the offences alleged.