KARTIK KUMAR PRABHAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of R.C. Case No. RC 04(A) of 2010 AHD (R) as also the order dated 11 -12 -2012, whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 193 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been taken against the petitioner.

(2.) A complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 02/2008, was lodged by the complainant before the Court of Vigilance alleging therein that two Ministers Mr. Hari Narayan Rai and Mr. Anosh Ekka have acquired huge properties by abusing their official position. The said complaint when was sent before the vigilance police station for its institution and registration, it was registered as Vigilance P.S. Case No. 26 of 2008. While the matter was being investigated by the Vigilance, an order was passed on 04/08/2010 by this Court in WP (PIL) Nos. 4700 of 2008 and 2252 of 2009, whereby the CBI was directed to take over the investigation of the said case. Accordingly, the CBI took over the investigation of the case. During investigation, it was found that Anosh Ekka has also acquired properties in the name of his wife Mrs. Menon Ekka, who had filed an application before the D.C.L.R for seeking permission in terms of Section 46 of the CNT Act to purchase the land situated within Ormajhi and Sadar Police Station. At the same time, the seller had also submitted application for having permission to sell that piece of land. Both the applications accompanied respective affidavits of the seller as well as purchaser stating therein that they do have landed property in the area situated within Ormajhi and Sadar police station. It also accompanied a check slip wherein one of the columns seeking information as to whether purchaser is the resident of the same police station. That was filled up wherein it was stated that purchaser is the resident of the same police station. On receiving the said applications the DCLR asked the Circle Officer, Kanke and Ormajhi to submit report. Both the Circle Officers called for a report from the Karamchari, who submitted its report stating therein that the purchaser is the resident of the area situated within the aforesaid police station. The Circle Inspector by making the same endorsement submitted the report to the Circle Officer, Kanke and Ormajhi, who by making endorsement 'forwarded and recommended' submitted its report to DCLR. Accordingly, the petitioner granted permission to the seller for selling land to Menon Ekka though Mrs. Menon Ekka in fact was never the resident of the area falling within the aforesaid police station.

(3.) ON submission of the charge sheet, when cognizance of the offences was taken by the Court, it was challenged before this Court.