Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash Corruption Case Against Former CM H D Kumarswamy [Read Order]

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a criminal case registered against former Chief Minister, H D Kumarswamy, alleging that he denotified two different plots of land acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), during his tenure as Chief Minister between June 2006 and October 2007, for pecuniary gains. Justice John Michael Cunha while dismissing the petition said "There is sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner for the alleged offences. In the absence of any material to show that the action initiated against the petitioner is an abuse of process of court and has resulted in failure of justice, there is no ground to quash the impugned proceedings as sought for in the petition." Kumarswamy and 18 others have been charged under sections 120B R/W 406, 420, 463, 465, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code and under sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Under sections 3 and 4 of Karnataka Land (Restriction of Transfer) Act. Case details: Complainant M.S.Mahadeva Swamy had filed a private complaint before the XXIII Addl. City Civil and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, seeking prosecution of the petitioner and 18 others. The Special Judge referred the complaint for investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. After investigation, a 'B' report was submitted by Lokayukta Police on 06.12.2018. The Special Judge issued court notice to the complainant. Complainant filed his protest petition on 3.5.2019. After hearing the learned counsel for complainant and learned Special Public Prosecutor, by order dated 20.07.2019, rejected the 'B-Report' and took cognizance of the offences. Later, it posted the matter for recording the sworn statement of the complainant. Thereafter, the Special Court recorded the statement of the complainant and by order dated 04.09.2019, the Special Court directed registration of the criminal case against the accused. Petitioner Argued: The rejection of 'B' Summary Report by the Trial Court is not proper and an error has been committed by issuing notice to the complainant. Further, it was said that the complainant was a stranger to the entire transaction. He had no personal knowledge of the alleged de-notification and therefore, he was not competent to speak about the alleged transaction which had taken place in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law. It was also submitted that no material is produced by the complainant to show that the petitioner has made any unlawful gain on account of the alleged de-notification and that he has caused wrongful loss to the State Exchequer. As such, even the ingredients of the offence under Sec 13(1) (c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are also not made out. It was also claimed that the Special Court has utterly failed to apply its mind to the facts of the case and has passed the impugned order without application of mind and in violation of the statutory rules. Moreover, the allegations made in the complaint, the alleged acts were performed by the petitioner while he was discharging his duty as the Chief Minister and therefore no prosecution could have been launched against the petitioner without prior sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. and section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Finally, it was submitted that proceedings initiated against the petitioner are malafide and ulteriorly motivated. The complainant being a political opponent of the petitioner, the allegations made in the complaint are actuated by malice and are calculated to tarnish the image of the petitioner. Prosecution argued: Special Public Prosecutor Venkatesh S. Arbatti, submitted that all the contentions urged by the petitioner regarding non-application of mind and want of previous sanction for initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner are already considered by this Court in Crl.P.No.4024/2012 and relying on the very same material and placing reliance on the very same decisions has rejected these contentions by order dated 27.07.2015. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 03.10.2016 in SLP (Crl.)MP.No.15963/2016 and therefore, these grounds are not available to the petitioner to challenge the orders passed by the learned Special Judge. The court observed: In regards to the contention that the special court could not have rejected the 'B' summary report. The court said "The records indicate that by a detailed and considered order, the Special court rejected the 'B' summary report vide order dated 20.07.2019. This order is self-explanatory and clearly reflects that by assigning cogent reasons, the learned Special Judge rejected the 'B' summary report and thereafter, took cognizance of the offences." It added "It is evident from the order that...

Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash Corruption Case Against Former CM H D Kumarswamy [Read Order]

Mustafa Plumber

Tags