Recently, the Karnataka High Court dismissed a petition under section 482 seeking the quashing of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner accused. The court, while dismissing the case, observed that the offence committed by the defendants cannot be treated lightly given that they filed a PIL, requested Rs. 5 crores to have the case withdrawn and were caught red-handed taking Rs. 10 lahks.
The police have filed the charge sheet after conducting a comprehensive investigation. As a result, there is sufficient evidence to frame accusations against the accused. The proceedings cannot be quashed as a result.
This petition was listed before a single-judge bench consisting of Justice K Natarajan. The Counsel for the petitioner Smt. Padmavathi made the case that no allegation was made against the accused no. 3 to 7 and there is no participation of the said accused in the commission of the offense.
Facts of the case
This case arose based on a complaint filed by Krishna Ganesh Bhat. The alleged fact of the case is that the accused demanded money to withdraw a public interest litigation. This call was made by the advocate to the CEO of the Ramachandrapura Mutt. Subsequently, the information received from this call was forwarded to the advocate which looks after the legal issues of Ramachandrapura Mutt.
Thereafter, on subsequent calls, the accused demanded 5 crores to rectify all the disputes. Then, a trap was laid to catch the accused while accepting the 10 lakh rupees. In this Trap, accused no. 1 and 2 were captured. Then, the investigation was conducted, and a charge sheet was filed. This charge sheet included the names of accused 3 to 7 who were executive members in the Gokarna Hitha Rakshana Samithi.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the accused 3 to 7 who have filed the present petition, were not involved in demanding money. Further, it was contended that the allegations made were against the accused no. 1 and 2 who were caught red-handed. There were no allegations against the accused no—3 to 7 who are the complainants in the present case.
While the respondent (the original complainant) filed a statement of objection to content that the accused no. 3 to 7 were directly involved in the crime of demanding money. The PIL in question was filed by the association and they were the members of the same. Therefore, a prima facie case is made against them.
Judgment
After hearing the contentions from both sides, the court observed that from the investigation, it is clear that all the accused were in touch. The court exclaimed that the PIL case was filed by both associations and to withdraw the case, the members’ consent is unquestionably required. Accused No. 1 was a middleman who communicated with the complainant and an advocate named Arun Shyam who served as a ruse. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were caught red-handed when they communicated with the complainant and advocate.
The court further observed that there is enough evidence on file, including call detail records (CDR), to prove that the accused were conversing constantly before the trap and the capture of Accused Nos. 1 and 2. The criminal procedures should not be quashed at this time, in my opinion. Therefore, the present petition stands dismissed and the proceedings against the accused cannot be quashed.
