- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Prosecution Under Karnataka Control...
Prosecution Under Karnataka Control Of Organised Crime Act Can't Be Sustained When Proceedings For Predicate Offences Quashed: High Court
Mustafa Plumber
19 Oct 2022 9:00 AM GMT
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that when criminal proceedings for predicate offences are quashed, the prosecution initiated under the Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act, 2000 cannot be sustained.A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj thus allowed the petition filed by one Mirle Varadaraju and quashed the proceedings under KCOCA, following the quashment of the...
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that when criminal proceedings for predicate offences are quashed, the prosecution initiated under the Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act, 2000 cannot be sustained.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj thus allowed the petition filed by one Mirle Varadaraju and quashed the proceedings under KCOCA, following the quashment of the two FIR's which were the basis for initiating the prosecution under the Act.
"In view of the said proceedings having been quashed, as on today there is no proceedings in any crime number which are pending as against the petitioner. The offences under the IPC and or any other enactment being a predicate offence for the purpose of exercise of powers under Section 24(1)(A) and or Section 3 of the KCOCA when the proceedings in respect of such predicate offences have been quashed, I am of the considered opinion there is no purpose which would be served by continuing the proceedings under Section 3 of the KCOCA," the Court observed.
Based on two investigations pending in different crimes under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, it was alleged that the petitioner and certain others were involved in the organised crimes and as such, the Deputy Inspector General of Police had issued necessary permission under Section 24(1)(a) of KCOCA.
The Court was informed that though the petitioner was named as accused in those two crime numbers, those proceedings were quashed by the High Court and thus, the very basis for Section 24(1)(A) order had been eroded.
Concurring with this submission, the bench observed that though, when the order under Section 24(1)(A) was passed it was proper and correct inasmuch as there were more than two proceedings which were pending against the Petitioner, however, during the pendency of the said matter, the proceedings for predicate offences were quashed.
Following which it quashed the proceedings under KCOCA and held, "...the object and intent of KCOCA being to take separate proceedings as regards organised crime, tt is but required that there should be proceedings as regards multiple crimes being pending and/or being prosecuted for the provisions of KCOCA to be made applicable."
Case Title: MIRLE VARADARAJU v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 410 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 415
Date of Order: 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
Appearance: ASHOK HARNAHALLI, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRINIVAS RAO S S, ADVOCATE for petitioner; KIRAN S. JAVALI, SPP A/W MAHESH SHEETY, HCGP FOR R1 & R2.
