B.K. Manju vs State

Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—The Petitioner has raised the challenge to the proceedings in Crime No. 43/2010 registered by the Respondent.

Sri Ravi B. Naik, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is the Vice-Chairman of B.K. Halli Grama Panchayat. He submits that the Petitioner wants to come up in public life. Only to help the poor agriculturists, the Petitioner was persuading them to agree to sell their lands. It is with the best of his intentions that he was prevailing over the land-owners to give their consent letters to the compulsory acquisition of their lands for the benefit of Itaska Company. Viewed in this background, the allegations made against the Petitioner, even if accepted on the face value, do not attract the provisions contained in Sections 7, 13(1)(c)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of the IPC.

Sri Ravi Naik submits that; the Petitioner has never coerced any villager to part with his land. There are no complaints whatsoever against the Petitioner. No materials whatsoever are collected as against the Petitioner. According to Sri Naik, the suo motu proceedings are initiated and the investigation is being conducted over-zealously, He submits that whatever information is collected is in Crime No. 24/2010. This Court has already granted interim orders in Criminal Petition Nos. 5377, 6008 and 6009 of 2010 in respect of other accused persons. He has also relied on the Hon''ble Supreme Court''s judgment in the case of Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, and advanced the contention that what cannot be stayed are the proceedings before the Court; the investigation proceedings can always be stayed.

The learned Senior Counsel submits that only to overcome the stay orders granted by this Court in a number of cases, the Respondent Lokayukta has registered a fresh case. He also submits that the accused persons are being hassled in the guise of investigation and that they are being made to sit and wait from morning to till evening before the Lokayukta officials.

Sri S.G. Rajendra Reddy, the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the Lokayukta submits that the Petitioner''s anticipatory bail petitions are already dismissed by the Sessions Court and this Court. On their dismissals, he has not surrendered, He further submits that the allegation of harassment is absolutely false. When the Petitioner has not appeared even on a single occasion before the Investigating Officer, the question of his being subjected to any harassment would not arise at all.

Sri Reddy submits that large number of the affected farmers have already lodged the complaints with the Lokayukta in the matter. They have accused the Petitioner of threatening them and of committing the forgery and cheating.

Sri Rajendra Reddy brings to my notice what Sri Anjinappa, Smt. Sabirabi, Sri Abdul Wajid, Smt. Shabeena, Sri Munishamy, Sri Santosh B.M. Sri Venkataramana, Sri Ramachandra, Sri Hanumaiah, Smt. Jayamma, Smt. Rajamma, Sri Maregowda, Sri Santosh and Smt. Parvatamma. The Perusal of their statements reveals that the Petitioner approached the complainants stating that the title deeds pertaining to their properties are defective and that the Petitioner would have them rectified and further that he would get good sale consideration for them. The Petitioner took their signatures on blank papers and their photographs. When they approached the Petitioner for payment, the Petitioner informed them that they have to go to one Sri Katta Jagadish, S/o Sri Katta Subramanya Naidu because it is the said Sri Katta Jagadish who has purchased the lands. They have complained that they have not received any consideration. They have sought that the action against the Petitioner and Sri Katta Jagadish and others who have abetted them, as per law.

In the course of rejoinder, Sri Naik submits that these statements were not relied upon at the time of the consideration of the Petitioner''s anticipatory bail petitions. He further submits that he is taken by surprise by the reliance being placed upon by the statements of the said persons. According to him, they are only the statements and not the complaints. In the suo motu proceedings, the reports are collected on the basis of which the Petitioner is being implicated.

The power conferred by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an extraordinary power, which is to be exercised with utmost care, caution and circumspection. That the Petitioner is the Vice-Chairman of the Gram Panchayat or that he wants to come up in public life would not weigh with this Court while considering the petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is trite that the law is no respecter of persons.

The issue is no more res Integra. Following the catena of the Apex Court''s judgments, this Court in the case of Govindaraju Vs. State of Karnataka, has taken the considered view that power u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised to interfere with the statutory power of the police to conduct investigation in the cognizable offences. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision are extracted herein below:

The legislature has by adding the words, "no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground u/s 19(3) of the P.C. Act" unequivocally indicated that no stay could be granted by use of any power on any ground. This legal position is amplified by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of PASTOR P RAJU, where the considered view taken is that the power u/s 482 of the Code can be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings pending in any Court. But the power cannot be exercised to interfere with the statutory power of the police to conduct investigation in cognizable offences. In the said case the High Court''s quashing the proceedings at the investigation stage itself was disapproved by the Hon''ble Supreme Court.

In the case of SATYANARAYAN SHARMA, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that when the Parliament imposed an undiluted ban against granting stay in proceedings involving offences under the P.C. Act on any ground whatsoever, no Court shall circumvent the said ban through any means.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court has clearly expressed itself against missing or bypassing the legislative prohibition contained in Section 19(3)(c) of the P.C. Act.

I have also minutely gone through the memorandum of facts filed in support of the I.A for stay. The material paragraph 4 reads as follows:

I state that, every month in Grama Panchayathi office meeting was held and the presence of Petitioner is very essential in the said meetings as per the Grama Panchayathi Act, if any member do not attend the Grama Panchayathi meeting two occasions then on 3rd occasion his membership will automatically cancelled as per the Grama Panchayathi Act, intact the Secretary of Bandikodigehalli Grama panchayathi issued notice to Petitioner to attend the meeting on 22/11/2011, his presence in the Grama panchayathi is very essential, if he has not attend the 3rd meeting definitely he will loose his membership in Bandikodigehalli Grama panchayathi.

If these averments are accepted in their entirety, then also no case is made out either for the stay or for the interference in the investigation proceedings. The averments stated in the memorandum of facts may come to the rescue of the Petitioner, if he seeks a regular bail.

What matters is not the title or the caption or the heading of the document; what is of material importance is the sum and substance of the document. The particulars of the allegations furnished in the statements constitute adequate material to proceed against the Petitioner. This Court shall not quash the criminal proceedings on slender grounds. If an offence is disclosed, the Court will not interfere with the investigation.

In the result, this petition is dismissed.