Karnataka HC refuses to quash corruption case against former Chief Minister HD Kumaraswamy

The Karnataka High Court recently refused to quash a criminal case registered against HD Kumaraswamy , who allegedly denotified two plots of land acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) during his tenure as Chief Minister for financial gains [HD Kumarswamy v. State of Karnataka].

. While dismissing the petition, Justice John Michael Cunha held

. "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." Karnataka High Court . Factual Background

. The complaint pertains to the de-notification of land in Halagevaderahalli village at Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South.

. One MS Mahadeva Swamy had filed a private complaint before the XXIII Additional City Civil and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, seeking prosecution of Kumaraswamy and 18 others under various sections of the Indian Penal Code , the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Karnataka Land (Restriction of Transfer) Act .

. The Special Judge referred the complaint for investigation, after which a 'B' report was submitted by the Lokayukta Police. Shortly thereafter, the Special Judge issued notice to the complainant, who then filed a protest petition. After hearing the parties, the Court rejected the 'B-Report' and took cognizance of the offences.

. The Special Court then recorded the statement of the complainant and by order dated September 4, 2019, it directed registration of the criminal case against the accused persons.

. Aggrieved by the same, Kumaraswamy filed a petition before the High Court seeking to quash the criminal case against him.

. Arguments Raised

. The petitioners contended that 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 argued that the Special Judge has taken cognizance of the said offence along with other offences and issued process to the petitioner, which indicates total non-application of mind.

. 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 claimed.

. On the other hand, the Special Public Prosecutor Venkatesh S Arbatti urged the Court to dismiss the petition.

. What the Court held

. On the point of rejection of 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."

. On the point of non-application of mind and non-consideration of the material produced by the complainant, the Court said that at the stage of issuing process, the Special Judge is not required to analyse and sift through evidence or assign elaborate reasons.

. Keeping in mind various Supreme Court judgments, the Court also went through the guidelines and procedure to be adopted by the Magistrate in dealing with the 'B' summary report submitted by the investigating agency.

. "It is evident from the order dated 20.07.2019 that cognizance has been taken on the basis of the original complaint as per section 190(1) (a) of the Code, as by then, the police report was rejected and thereafter the trial Judge proceeded to examine the complainant upon oath as per section 200 Cr.P.C. and on considering the sworn statement and the documents produced by the complainant ordered issuance of process by a separate and considered order dated 04.09.2019. This procedure, in my view, is in consonance with the procedure laid down in the above decision and does not suffer from any error or procedural irregularity as sought to be made out by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner."

. The Bench went on to note,

. " The facts, in my view, squarely attract the ingredients of the offences under section 13(1) (c), 13(1) (d) and 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the provisions of Karnataka Land (Restriction of Transfer) Act."

. The Court also rejected the argument of the petitioner that the complainant was a stranger to the transaction in question and was not conversant with the dealings.

. With these observations, the Court concluded by stating,

. "The material produced before the learned Special Judge goes to show that the alleged offences are sought to be substantiated through documentary evidence and not on oral evidence. Since documents produced before the Court prima-facie make out the ingredients of the above criminal offences requiring summons to the petitioner, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order on the purported contentions raised in the petition."

. [Read order here]

Karnataka HC refuses to quash corruption case against former Chief Minister HD Kumaraswamy

Rintu Mariam Biju

Related Stories