"Serious Allegations ": Karnataka High Court Vacates Stay, Orders Thorough Investigation Against Karnataka CM BS Yediyurappa in 'Operation Kamala' case

In a set back to Chief Minister B.S. Yediyurappa, the Karnataka High Court vacated the stay granted on investigation and ordered a thorough probe to be conducted in the First Information Report in which he is accused of trying to woo JD(S) MLA Naganagouda Kandkur's son Sharanagouda with promise of money and Ministry in 2019 [Operation Kamala Case]"As the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR and the contents of the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences, the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to quash the above complaint and the FIR registered against the petitioners. Resultantly, petitioners being not entitled for the main relief claimed in the petitions, the question of continuing the interim order may not arise at all.",Justice John Michael Cunha said in his orderCase Background:It is alleged in the complaint/FIR, that on 07.02.2019 at about 10.40 p.m., the respondent No.2 / complainant (SHARANAGOUDA) received an anonymous phone call and the caller identified himself as Shivanagouda Naik, MLA, Devdurga Constituency (accused No.2).It is alleged that Naik asked him to come over to Devdurga circuit house immediately and when he replied that since it was late night and it would not be possible for him to come over to circuit house, accused No.2 is stated to have called him again and handed over the call to accused No.1 (Yediyurappa) who asked the complainant to come immediately to discuss some urgent matter and thereafter the complainant left to Devdurga and reached the circuit house around 12 O' clock midnight.Further, it is stated that he was taken to a room wherein accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 were sitting and accused No.1 told the complainant that if he would help the accused No.1 and persuade his father to resign his seat, then accused No.1 would make the complainant win the Assembly Election from Gurmitkal Constituency, meet all the election expenses and make him In-charge Minister of Yadgir District.It was also alleged that accused No.1 told the complainant that if he persuaded his father to resign as a MLA, then in the By-Election, accused No.1 would give the complainant a seat from the Bharatiya Janata Party and make him win the seat and also give him Rs.10 crores as bribe.Further, it is alleged that accused No.1 told the complainant to go to Mumbai and stay in the resort along with other MLAs who were already staying in the said resort and that the amount would be delivered to the house of the complainant when the complainant's father tenders his resignation as a MLA. The aforesaid conversation was recorded by the complainant.Following which an FIR came to be registered and Yediyurappa and other accused moved the court seeking to quash the complaint dated 13.02.2019 and the FIR registered for the offences punishable under sections 8 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018 and for the offences under sections 120B and 506 read with section 34 of IPC and to quash all further proceedings thereto (vide Annexure-'C').By way of an interim order dated 22.02.2019, the high court passed a common interim order staying further investigation and all further proceedings pursuant to the registration of FIR in Crime No.0019/2019 until disposal of the writ petitions and the petitions were admitted and notices were issued to respondent No.2.Since the interim order was passed ex-parte, respondent No.2 filed applications seeking recall of the order dated 22.02.2019.Court Findings:As regards the locus standi of respondent No.2 to maintain the application for vacation of the interim order. The court relied on the observations made by the Supreme Court in SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY v. MANMOHAN SINGH AND ANOTHER, (2012) 3 SCC 64 in which it is noted that;"The right of private citizen to file a complaint against a corrupt public servant must be equated with his right to access the Court in order to set the criminal law in motion against a corrupt public official. This right of access, a Constitutional right should not be burdened with unreasonable fetters. When a private citizen approaches a court of law against a corrupt public servant who is highly placed, what is at stake is not only a vindication of personal grievance of that citizen but also the question of bringing orderliness in society and maintaining equal balance in the rule of law." The court extracted Rule 18 and Rule 12, 13 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 and went on to note that "In the instant cases, no rule was issued and the order dated 22.02.2019 was passed without service of notice on respondent No.2.Accordingly it held " In the wake of these provisions, the argument of learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners, assailing the locus standi of respondent No.2, is an argument of desperation and is nothing but an ingenious attempt to hold on to the interim order, so as to delay and...

"Serious Allegations ": Karnataka High Court Vacates Stay, Orders Thorough Investigation Against Karnataka CM BS Yediyurappa in 'Operation Kamala' case

Mustafa Plumber

Tags