Karnataka High Court
Srikantaiah vs State By on 26 May, 2022
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.12/2022 (GM - RES)
BETWEEN
SRIKANTAIAH,
S/O LATE B.LINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT K SHETTY HALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA - 571 801.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MURTHY D. NAIK, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI TRIVIKRAM S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE BY ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,
POLICE STATION (ACB),
MADIKERI,
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201.
2. SRI B.M. NANDAKUMAR,
S/O LATE B.W.MEDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT KOLAGADALU VILLAGE,
CHRAMBANE, MADIKERI TALUK,
KODAGU, KARNATAKA - 571 201.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.N. MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.7/2021 FOUND AT
ANNEXURES - A AND B FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 7(a) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT AND
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS COURT (SPECIAL COURT) KODAGU DISTRICT
SITTING AT MADIKERI AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri Murthy D Naik, learned Senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri P N Manmohan,
learned counsel representing respondent No.1.
2. The petitioner calls in question proceedings in Crime
No.7/2021 registered for offence punishable under Section
7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Challenging the
very same crime number and on the very same ground,
petitioner was before this Court in Criminal Petition
No.8215/2021, which came to be disposed on 03.12.2021,
by the following order;
"Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks
permission to withdraw this petition and liberty
to challenge the charge sheet in case it is filed.
Submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is placed on record. This petition
is dismissed according liberty to the
petitioner to challenge the charge sheet, if
it is filed."
3. The dismissal of the petition was reserving liberty to
the petitioner to challenge the charge sheet, if it is filed. It
is an admitted fact that even as on date the charge sheet
is not filed. Therefore, the petitioner is bound by the
order dated 03.12.2021, which has become final.
4. Learned Senior counsel taking this Court through the
judgments of the Apex Court would contend that the
second petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. would become
maintainable. There can be no qualm at the enunciation of
law by the Apex Court as to the maintainability of the
second petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., but only in
exceptional cases where there are changed circumstances.
The changed circumstance as quoted in the aforesaid order
is yet to arrive. The circumstance not yet arrived, the
second petition for the same reason would not be
maintainable owing to peculiarity of the facts of the case.
Therefore, the petition stands dismissed albeit reserving
the very same liberty that the Court had earlier reserved in
Criminal Petition No.8215/2021.
Sd/-
JUDGE
mv
