Karnataka High Court Quashes Special Judge Order Referring Corruption Complaint Against Minister CT Ravi To ACB

first_imgNews UpdatesKarnataka High Court Quashes Special Judge Order Referring Corruption Complaint Against Minister CT Ravi To ACB Mustafa Plumber6 Nov 2020 9:50 AMShare This – xThe Karnataka High Court has partly allowed a petition filed by Minister C.T. Ravi, seeking to quash proceedings initiated against him on alleged charges of corruption. Justice John Michael Cunha quashed and set aside the order dated October 6, 2016, issued by the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, referring the complaint made before it under Sections 13(1)(e)…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Karnataka High Court has partly allowed a petition filed by Minister C.T. Ravi, seeking to quash proceedings initiated against him on alleged charges of corruption. Justice John Michael Cunha quashed and set aside the order dated October 6, 2016, issued by the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, referring the complaint made before it under Sections 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Act, to the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Bengaluru, for investigation and for filing the report before the Court on or before 05.01.2017. However, the High Court remanded back the matter to the Special Judge to afford an opportunity to the complainant/respondent No.2 to file his affidavit. It said “An opportunity is required to the complainant to cure the said defects and bring his complaint in conformity with the requirements of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava’s case.” It added “It is also open to the complainant/respondent No.2 to file the complaint, if need be, before the Anti-Corruption Bureau, as the allegations pertain to the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act.” The complainant A.C. Kumar presented a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The prayer made in the petition is to refer the matter for investigation to the Hon’ble Lokayuktha Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Petitioners Arguments: Relying on the Supreme Court judgement in the case of PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287. Senior Advocate Ashok Haranahalli, submitted that in the absence of any averments made in the complaint to the effect that respondent No.2/Complainant has exhausted the remedy under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) and there being no affidavit as mandated, the learned Special Judge has committed an error in referring the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Arguments made by State: Special Public Prosecutor Jeevan J. Neeralgi, contended that the complaint was filed in the year 2012 much earlier to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the year 2015 and as such, the principles laid down in the said decision cannot be applied to the facts of the case. Further, he submitted that non filing of the affidavit may amount to a curable irregularity and the same does not amount to an illegality vitiating the impugned order and thus, sought to dismiss the petition. Complainant contended: Advocate J.D. Kashinath appearing for respondent No.2 adopted the submissions made by counsel for respondent No.1. He relied on judgement of the High Court in the case of MALLINATH MAHARAJ @ MALLAYYA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER in Crl.P.No.200281/2017. Court observed: “The Hon’ble Supreme Court has mandated that when an application is filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, the same shall be supported by an affidavit, so that the learned Magistrate could verify the truth of the allegations made in the complaint and also to obviate false and irresponsible complaints being filed invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal courts. This direction is binding on all the courts under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.” It rejected the submissions of the complainant saying “The decision relied on by the respondent No.2 does not hold that the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are not required to be complied by the criminal courts. On the other hand, considering the mandatory nature of the direction, the coordinate Bench of this Court has directed the Registry to send a copy of the said judgment along with the copy of the order to the Law Commission for bringing about necessary amendment in the Code. Until the said amendment is brought about, the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are required to be followed as the law of the land.” Cause Title: C.T. Ravi (M.L.A.) And The State of Karnataka. Case No: WRIT PETITION No.62671 OF 2016 (GM-RES) Date Of Order: 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020 Coram: JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA Appearance: Senior Advocate Ashok Haranahalli, a/w Advocate Chinmay J. Mirji for petitioner. SPP Jeevan J. Neeralgi, for R.1, Advocate J.D. Kashinath for R2Click Here To Download Order[Read Order]Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *