Karnataka High Court

S Srinivas Reddy vs State Of Karnataka on 17 March, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5079 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

S.SRINIVAS REDDY
S/O LATE N.NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RETIRED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BYATARAYANAPURA DIVISION
BBMP, BENGALURU
RESIDING AT NO.138, 3RD 'B' CROSS
2ND STAGE, 7TH BLOCK, NAGARBHAVI
BENGALURU - 560 072.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PARAMESHWAR N.HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.B.PATIL. SPL.PP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2024
PASSED BY THE LXXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
2

JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRYING THE OFFENCE UNDER
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT BENGALURU (CCH-77) IN
SPL.C.C.NO.159/2023 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 8
AND 13(1)(c) & (e) R/W 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION
ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION OF THE
PETITIONER FILED U/S 227 OF CR.P.C. BY DISCHARGING THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order

dated 14-02-2024 passed by the LXXVI Additional City Civil and

Sessions Judge & Special Judge for trying the offences under the

Prevention of Corruption Act, Bengaluru, rejecting the application

filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. seeking his

discharge from the array of accused in Special C.C.No.159 of 2023,

registered for offences punishable under Sections 8, 13(1)(c) and

(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short).
3

2. Heard Sri Parameshwar N.Hegde, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.B.Patil, learned Special Public

Prosecutor for the respondent.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:

The petitioner was an employee of the Karnataka Rural

Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited. He was sent on

deputation as Executive Engineer to the Bruhat Bengaluru

Mahanagara Palike ('BBMP') and was posted to work at

Byatarayanapura Sub-Division. When he was so working, a suo

motu complaint comes to be registered by the Police wing of the

Karnataka Lokayukta alleging that the petitioner in his capacity as

an Executive Engineer was alleged of accepting bribes or illegal

gratifications from the contractors through a middleman one Murali

Mohan, accused No.2, who is also a Contractor for issuance of work

orders pursuant to tenders, clearing the work bills in respect of

works executed within Byatarayanapura Division of the BBMP. The

complaint comes to be registered on 06-05-2015 for the afore-

quoted offences and investigation would commence on registration

of the crime in Crime No.29 of 2015.
4

4. The petitioner is accused No.1 and the middle man - Murali

Mohan is accused No.2. After the investigation, a final report is

filed before the concerned Court and sanction is sought for

prosecuting the petitioner in terms of Section 19 of the Act. The

competent authority accords sanction to prosecute the petitioner.

Charge sheet then comes to be filed before the concerned Court on

19.01.2023 for offences punishable as afore-quoted. The charge

sheet that is filed is for the offences punishable under Sections

13(1)(a), 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 12 of the Act. On filing of the charge

sheet, the petitioner files an application seeking his discharge from

the array of accused on 30-06-2023. The concerned Court in terms

of its order dated 14-02-2024, rejects the application seeking his

discharge and directs framing of charges against the petitioner. It is

at that stage, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject

petition.

5. The learned counsel Sri Parameshwar N. Hegde, appearing

for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the concerned

Court on the application for discharge has acted as a mouthpiece of
5

the prosecution without looking into any of the material placed by

the petitioner in the application. The learned counsel would submit

that the case worker Channarayudu was given the files to make

photo copies and he had left one file on the table. At that point in

time, the car of accused No.2 was searched and many files were

seized. The petitioner was also found in possession of cash of

₹7,000/-, which he adequately explained. All these factors are

ignored by the Court while answering the application. He would,

therefore, submit that the order dated 14-02-2024 be quashed and

the application filed seeking discharge be allowed.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent Sri B.B.Patil, would vehemently refute the submissions

to contend that the petitioner was working in Byatarayanapura Sub-

Division for a long time. He had engaged the services of accused

No.2, another contractor for collection of documents and money.

Though he was given a car by the BBMP for all official purposes, he

used the car of accused No.2. Sanction order of the competent

authority is very clear that it requires a trial. Accused No.1 did not

account for ₹7,000 cash found in his custody and several files found
6

in the car of accused No.2. He would contend that at the stage of

discharge, though it is not the law that concerned Court should look

into all the material, the concerned Court in the case at hand has

looked into all the materials and found the petitioner not fit to be

discharged. Charges have now been framed and the matter is at

the stage of trial. He would seek dismissal of the petition.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the

material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts, dates, link in the chain of events

are all a matter of record. The petitioner along with accused No.2

gets embroiled in a crime. The embroilment of the petitioner is not

on a complaint by any individual complainant, but a suo motu case

registered by the Lokayukta on credible information. Since the

entire issue sprang from the suo motu complaint, I deem it

appropriate to notice the complaint. It reads as follows:

"ರವ ೆ.
ೕ ಅ ೕ ಕರು.
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ೋ ಾಯುಕ.
7

ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ.

ಾನ !ೆ.

"ಷಯ:- ಾಯ $%ಾ ಹಕ ಅ'ಯಂತರರು, ಾ ಟ!ಾಯನಪ*ರ "+ಾಗ, ,,ಎಂ.
ರವರ ಕ/ೇ ಯ 0 ನ1ೆಯು2ರುವ ಅವ ವ3ಾರದ ಬ ೆ6.
****

7ೕಲ9ಂಡ "ಷಯ ೆ9 ಸಂಬಂ <ದಂ=ೆ ನನ ೆ +ಾ2>?ಾರ ಂದ ಬಂದ ಾ@2ಯಂ=ೆ "ಬೃಹB ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಮ3ಾನಗರ Dಾ ೆಯ ಾ ಟ!ಾಯನಪ*ರ "+ಾಗದ ಾಯ $%ಾ ಹಕ ಅ'ಯಂತರ!ಾದ EFೕ ಎG.EFೕ$%ಾಸ!ೆHI ರವರು ಕJೆದ ಸು ಾರು ವಷ ಗKಂದ ಾ ಟ!ಾಯನಪ*ರ "+ಾಗದ ೆ0ೕ ಇ.ಇ ಆN ಕತ ವ $ವ @ಸು2ದುO, ಇವರು ತಮP %ಾ . ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟR ಾಮ ಾ ಗಳ SೆಂಡTಗಳನುU SೆಂಡTಗಳನುU ಒ.W ೊಳXಲು 3ಾಗೂ ಾYಾ?ೇಶ ಾYಾ?ೇಶ $ೕಡಲು ಮತು ಕಂSಾFಕRgïUÀಳ[ ಳ[ $ವ @<ದ ಾಮ ಾ ಗK ೆ ಹಣ Dಾವ2 ಾಡುವ ಬ ೆ6 ಕಡತಗಳನುU ,,ಎಂ.ಯ ೇಂದF ಕ/ೇ ೆ ಕಳ[@ಸಲು ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟR ಗು2 ೆ?ಾರರುಗKಂದ ಪF2]ನ ಲಂಚದ ಹಣವನುU ಪ1ೆಯು2ರುವ*ದು 3ಾಗೂ ಸದ ಲಂಚದ ಹಣವನುU ಾಮ ಾ $ವ @<ದ ಗು2 ೆ?ಾರರುಗKಂದ EFೕ ಮುರK _ೕಹG ಗು2 ೆ?ಾರ/ಮಧ ೆ?ಾರ ಮಧ ªÀ2 ಎಂಬುವವರು ವಸೂ ಾH ನಂತರ ಸದ ಹಣವನುU EFೕ ಎG.EFೕ$%ಾಸ!ೆHI ಎG EFೕ$%ಾಸ!ೆHI gÀವ ೆ ತಲು.ಸು=ಾ!ೆಂಬ ಬ ೆ6 ಖbತ ಾ@2 ಇರುತ?ೆ.

ಇರುತ?ೆ

ಎG.EFೕ$%ಾಸ!ೆHI ಎG EFೕ$%ಾಸ!ೆHI ರವರು ಪF2]ನ ಅಂ ಾ<ಡT %ಾಹನ ಸಂcೆ ೆಎ-01-ಎG ೆಎ ಎG-8490 ಎG ರ 0 3ಾಗೂ EFೕ ಮುರ½_ೕಹG ರವರು ಾರು2 de ಾ ನ 0 ಓ1ಾಡು2ರುವ*ದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ]ರುತ?ೆ.

ಕಂಡುಬಂ]ರುತ?ೆ 7ೕಲ9ಂಡ ಲಂಚದ ಹಣವನುU ಸದ %ಾಹನಗಳ ಮೂಲಕ%ೇ gಾNಸು=ಾ!ೆಂಬ ಬ ೆ6 ಾ@2 ಬಂದ 7ೕ!ೆ ೆ ಾನು ೌಪ %ಾN ಸದ ಕ/ೇ ೆ +ೇi $ೕH ಪ Eೕ ಸ ಾN +ಾ2>?ಾರರು $ೕHರುವ ಾ@2ಯು 7ೕ ೊUೕಟ ೆ9 ಸತ %ಾNರುತ?ೆ.

%ಾNರುತ?ೆ

ಆದO ಂದ 7ೕಲ9ಂಡ EFೕ ಎG.EFೕ$%ಾಸ!ೆHI ರವರ ಕ/ೇ ಯನುU jೆkೕಧ ೆ ಾHದ 0 ಗು2 ೆ?ಾರ ಂದ ಸಂಗF@<ರುವ ಅDಾರ ಪF ಾಣದ ಲಂಚದ ಹಣ ಪ=ೆYಾಗುವ gಾಧ =ೆ ಇರುತ?ೆ ಎಂಬ ಬ ೆ6 ವರ]ಯನುU ಮುಂ]ನ ಕFಮ ಾ9N ಸ 0<ರು=ೇ ೆ.

ತಮP "lೇಯ

¸À»/-

6/5/15

( ಮಹಮPm ಮು ಾ!ಾn )"

(Emphasis added)

The complaint results in registration of a crime in Crime No.29 of

2015 for the afore-quoted offences. The Police conduct

investigation and get their final report ready to be filed before the

concerned Court. As necessary under Section 19 of the Act, the

respondent/Lokayukta sought sanction at the hands of the

competent authority. The competent authority grants sanction in

terms of its order dated 17-10-2022. The order granting sanction is

germane to be noticed. It reads as follows:

"ಪFgಾವ ಪFgಾವ ೆ:

ೆ

ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ರೂರo ಇGpಾFಸqಕRT 1ೆವಲr7ಂd sSೆtನ 0 ಾಯ Dಾಲಕ ಅ'ಯಂತರ!ಾNದುO, (ಪFಸುತ ವuೕ$ವೃ2 3ೊಂ]ರು=ಾ!ೆ) ಬೃಹB ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಮ3ಾನಗರ Dಾ ೆಯ 0 ಅನ gೇ%ೆಯ 7ೕ ೆ ೆಲಸ $ವ @<2ದO EFೕ.ಎG. EFೕ$%ಾಸ!ೆHIರವರು ,,ಎಂ.ಯ ಾ ಟ!ಾಯನಪ*ರ "+ಾಗದ 0 ೆಲಸ $ವ @ಸು2ದO ಅವ ಯ 0 ತಮP %ಾ . ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟR ಾಮ ಾ ಗಳ SೆಂಡTಗಳನುU ಒ.W ೊಳXಲು 3ಾಗೂ ಾYಾ ?ೇಶ $ೕಡಲು ಮತು ಕಂSಾFಕRTಗಳ[ $ವ @<ದ ಾಮ ಾ ಗK ೆ ಹಣ Dಾವ2 ಾಡುವ ಬ ೆ6 ಕಡತಗಳನುU ,,ಎಂ.ಯ ೇಂದF ಕ/ೇ ೆ ಕಳ[@ಸಲು ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟR ಗು2 ೆ?ಾರರುಗKಂದ ಪF2]ನ ಲಂಚದ ಹಣವನುU ಪ1ೆಯು2ದುO, ಸದ ಲಂಚದ ಹಣವನುU ಾಮ ಾ $ವ @<ದ ಗು2 ೆ?ಾರರುಗKಂದ cಾಸN ವ vYಾದ ಮುರK _ೕಹG, ಗು2 ೆ?ಾರ/ಮಧ ವ2 ಎಂಬುವವರು ವಸೂ ಾH ನಂತರ ಸದ ಲಂಚದ ಹಣವನುU ಎG.EFೕ$%ಾಸ!ೆHIರವ ೆ ತಲು.ಸು=ಾ!ೆ ಎಂಬ ದೂ ನ ಆlಾರದ 7ೕ ೆ ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ೋ ಾಯುಕ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ "+ಾಗದ _ಕದO7

ಸಂcೆ :29/2015, ಕಲಂ 12, 13(1) (ಎ) (H) wೊ=ೆ ೆ 13(2) ಭFyಾRzಾರ ಪF2ಬಂಧ ಾ{O-1988 =ಾ ಪFಕರಣ ?ಾಖ < ತ$cೆ ೈ ೊಳX ಾNರುತ?ೆ.

ತ$cೆಯ ಸಮಯದ 0 ಅ ಾನತು ಪH< ೊಳX ಾದ ?ಾಖ ಾ2ಗಳ ಪ Eೕಲ ೆ}ಂದ ಆ!ೋ.-1 !ೋ. ಎG.

ಎG EFೕ$%ಾಸ!ೆHI, ಾಯ Dಾಲಕ ಅ'ಯಂತರರು, ಅ'ಯಂತರರು ಾ ಟ!ಾಯನಪ*ರ "+ಾಗ, "+ಾಗ ,,ಎಂ., ,,ಎಂ. ೆಂಗಳ ರು ರವರ ಸುಪ] ಯ ರ 0 ೇ ಾದ ,,ಎಂ. ಇ ಾcೆಯ ಮೂಲ ಕಡತಗJಾದ ..ಎ~ ಎ~.ಸಂcೆ ಎ~ ಸಂcೆ :1, 2, 4, 5 & 12 ಗಳನುU ಅDಾFsಕ%ಾN ದುರಪuೕಗಪH< ೊಂಡು ಮತು cಾಸN ವv ಆ!ೋ.-2 ಆ!ೋ. ಮುರK _ೕಹGರವ _ೕಹGರವ ೆ ಇಟುR ೊಳ[Xವಂ=ೆ ಅವ ಾಶ ಾH ೊiRರುವ*ದು, ೊiRರುವ*ದು ಭFyಾRzಾರ ಪF2ಬಂಧಕ ಾ{O-1988, ಕಲಂ 13(1) (< <) wೊ=ೆ ೆ 13(2) ಪF ಾರ E•ಾಹ ಅಪ!ಾಧ%ಾNರುತ?ೆ.

ಅಪ!ಾಧ%ಾNರುತ?ೆ 3ಾ ೆ{ೕ ಕ/ೇ jೆkೕಧ ಾ ಸಂದಭ ದ 0 ಆ!ೋ.-1 ಆ!ೋ.

ರವ ಂದ ಅ ಾನತು ಪH< ೊಳX ಾದ ರೂ.7,000.00ಗK ರೂ ಗK ೆ ಆ!ೋ.-1 ಆ!ೋ. ರವರು Yಾವ*?ೇ ಪ€ರಕ%ಾದ ?ಾಖ ೆಗಳನುU ೆಗಳನುU ಸ ಸ 0 ?ೇ ಇರುವ*ದು ಭFyಾRzಾರ ಪF2ಬಂಧಕ ಾ{O - 1988, ಕಲಂ ಇ) wೊ=ೆ ೆ 13(2) ಪF ಾರ E•ಾಹ ಅಪ!ಾಧ%ಾNರುತ?ೆ. 13(1)(ಇ ಅಪ!ಾಧ%ಾNರುತ?ೆ ಕ/ೇ jೆkೕಧ ಾ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è cಾಸN ವ vYಾದ ಆ!ೋ. ಮುರK_ೕಹG ರವರ cಾಸN ಾ ನ 0 ಆ!ೋ.-1 ಆ!ೋ. ರವರ ಸುಪ] ನ ರ 0 ೇ ಾದ ,,ಎಂ. ೆ ಸಂಬಂ <ದ ಮೂಲ ಕಡತಗಳ[ ಮತು ಅವರ ಬK ಅಕFಮ%ಾN ?ೊ!ೆಹ ರೂ.

ರೂ 12,310.00 ಗಳನುU ಪಂಚರ ಸಮ ಮ ಅ ಾನತು ಪH< ೊಂHರುವ*ದು DgÉÆÃ¦-2 ರವರು ಭFಷR/ ಭFಷR ಾನೂನು ಾ@ರ "lಾನದ ಮೂಲಕ ಆ!ೋ.-1 ಆ!ೋ. ರವರ 7ೕ ೆ ಪF+ಾವ ,ೕ ಭFyಾRzಾರ ಪF2ಬಂಧಕ ಾ{O-1988, ಕಲಂ 8ರ ರ ಪF ಾರ E•ಾಹ ಅಪ!ಾಧವಸNರುವ*ದು ತ$cೆ}ಂದ ದೃಢಪiRರುತ?ೆ ದೃಢಪiRರುತ?ೆ.

ಢಪiRರುತ?ೆ ಆದO ಂದ ಆ!ೋ.ತರು ಸ ಮ ಾ Yಾಲಯದ 0 ಅ'uೕಜ ೆ ೆ ಒಳಪಡಲು ಅಹ !ಾNರು=ಾ!ೆ.

!ಾNರು=ಾ!ೆ ಈ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಆ!ೋ.-1 ರವರ ಸ ಮ DಾF ಾರ ಅ„ಾ B ತನU ಹು?ೆO}ಂದ =ೆ ೆದು 3ಾಕುವ/ವwಾ ಾಡುವ ಅ ಾರವ*ಳX DಾF ಾರದ ಪ€%ಾ ನುಮ2 ಅತ ಗತ %ಾNರುತ?ೆ.

ಆದO ಂದ ಆ!ೋ.-1 J£ï. EFೕ$%ಾಸ!ೆHI, ಾಯ Dಾಲಕ అ AiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ ಾ ಟ!ಾಯನಪ*ರ "+ಾಗ, ,,ಎಂ., ೆಂಗಳ ರು (3ಾ $ವೃ2) ರವರನುU ಭFyಾRzಾರ ಪF2ಬಂಧಕ ಾ{O-1988ರ PÀ®A 13(1) (¹) (E) ¸ÀºÀªÁZÀ£À 13(2) gÀr ಅ'uೕಜ ೆ ೊಳಪHಸಲು ಭFyಾRzಾರ ಪF2ಬಂಧಕ ಾ{O-1988ರ ಕಲಂ 19(1)(<) ರನ...ಯ 3ಾಗೂ ಆ!ೋ.ತರು 3ಾ ವuೕ $ವೃ2 3ೊಂ]ದOರೂ ಸಹ +ಾರತ ಸ ಾ ರದ !ಾಜ ಪತF ಸಂcೆ :28 ] ಾಂಕ 26-07-2018ರ 0 ಪFಕಟ%ಾNರುವ ಭFyಾRzಾರ ¤!ೋಧ ಾ{O (2ದುOಪH)2018 ರನ...ಯ ಅ'uೕಜ ಾ ಮಂಜೂ!ಾ2 $ೕಡಲು ಅಪರ ೕ ೕ ಮ3ಾ $?ೇ ಶಕರು, ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ೋ ಾಯುಕ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಇವರು ಉ ೆ0ೕಖದ 0ನ ಪತFದ ಮುcೇನ ೋ ರು=ಾ!ೆ. ಅಪರ ೕ ೕ ಮ3ಾ $?ೇ ಶಕರು, ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ೋ ಾಯುಕ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು

ಇವರು ಸ 0<ರುವ ಪFgಾವ ೆಯನುU $ಯ ಾನುgಾರ ಕೂಲ ಕಷ%ಾN ಪ Eೕ ಸ ಾNದುO, ೆಳಕಂಡ ಆ?ೇಶವನುU 3ೊರHಸ ಾN?ೆ.

ಆ ?ೇ ಶ

¸ÀA:PÉDgïLrJ¯ï/¯ÉÆÃPï/LJ£ï«(f)/¹n/PÉÊA.29/2015/2022-23(E«) ¢£ÁAPÀ:17-10-2022

ಪFgಾವ ೆಯ 0 "ವ <ರುವ ಾರಣಗಳ @ ೆU ೆಯ 0 ಉ ೆ0ೕಖ (2) ರ 0ನ ] ಾಂಕ 25-06-2021 ರ ಅ ಸೂಚ ೆಯ ಮುcೇನ ಸಂgೆ‡ಯ ವ ವgಾ‡ಪಕ $?ೆ ಶಕರು 3ಾಗೂ Eಸು DಾF ಾ ಯವ ೆ ಪFದತ%ಾದ ಅ ಾರದಂ=ೆ EFೕ.ಎG EFೕ ಎG.

ಎG EFೕ$%ಾಸ!ೆHI, $ವೃತ ಾಯ Dಾಲಕ ಅ'ಯಂತರರು, ಅ'ಯಂತರರು ೆಆT ೆಆTಐHಎo ಇವರನುU ಭFyಾRzಾರ ಪF2ಬಂಧಕ ಾ{O-1988ರ ರ ಕಲಂ 13(1) <) (ಇ (< ಇ) ಸಹ%ಾಚನ 13(2) ರH ಅ'uೕಜ ೆ ೊಳಪHಸಲು ಭFyಾRzಾರ ಪF2ಬಂಧಕ ಾ{O - ರ ಕಲಂ 19(1)(< 1988ರ <) ರನ...ಯ ಮಂಜೂ!ಾ2ಯನುU ಈ ಮೂಲಕ $ೕಡ ಾN?ೆ."

ಾN?ೆ

(Emphasis added)

After grant of sanction, the respondent/Lokayukta files its final

report before the concerned Court. Column No.7 of the said final

report reads as follows:

'ಬೃಹB ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಮ3ಾನಗರ Dಾ ೆಯ ಾ ಟ!ಾಯನಪ*ರ "+ಾಗದ ಆ!ೋ.ತ!ಾದ ಾಯ $%ಾ ಹPÀ ಅ'ಯಂತರ!ಾದ EFೕ ಎG.EFೕ$%ಾಸ !ೆHI ರವರು ಕJೆದ ಸು ಾರು ವಷ ಗKಂದ ಾ ಟ!ಾಯನಪ*ರ "+ಾಗದ ೆ0ೕ ಇ.ಇ ಆN ಕತ ವ $ವ @ಸು2ದುO, ಇವರು ತಮP %ಾ . ೆ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ ಾಮ ಾ ಗಳ SೆಂಡTಗಳನುU ಒ.W ೊಳXಲು 3ಾಗೂ ಾYಾ ?ೇಶ $ೕಡಲು ಮತು ಕಂSಾFಕRTಗಳ[ $ವ @<ದ ಾಮ ಾ ಗK ೆ ಹಣ Dಾವ2 ಾಡುವ ಬ ೆ6 ಕಡತಗಳನುU ,,ಎಂ.ಯ ೇಂದF ಕ/ೇ ೆ ಕಳ[@ಸಲು ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟR ಗು2 ೆ?ಾರರುಗKಂದ ಪF2]ನ ಲಂಚದ ಹಣವನುU ಪ1ೆಯು2ರುವ*ದು 3ಾಗೂ ಸದ ಲಂಚದ ಹಣವನುU ಾಮ ಾ $ವ @<ದ ಗು2 ೆ?ಾರರುಗKಂದ EFೕ ಮುರK _ೕಹG ಗು2 ೆ?ಾರ/ಮಧ ವ2 ಎಂಬುವವರು ವಸೂ ಾH ನಂತರ ಸದ ಹಣವನುU EFೕ ಎG.EFೕ$%ಾಸ!ೆHI ರವ ೆ ತಲು.ಸು=ಾ!ೆ ಎಂಬ ಸದ ದೂ ನ ಆlಾರದ 7ೕ ೆ _ಕದO7 ?ಾಖ < _ಕದO7 ಸಂcೆ . 29/2015, ಕಲಂ 12,

13(1) (ಎ) (H) wೊ=ೆ ೆ 13(2) ಭFyಾRzಾರ ಪF2ಬಂಧ ಅ $ಯಮ 1988ರ 0 ತ$cೆ ೈ ೊಂHರುತ?ೆ.

ತ$cೆಯ ಸಂಬಂಧ ,,ಎಂ., ಾ ಟ!ಾಯನಪ*ರ "+ಾಗ, ಾಯ Dಾಲಕ ಅ'ಯಂತರರ ಕ/ೇ jೆkೕಧ£É ೈ ೊಂಡು ಹಲ%ಾರು ?ಾಖ ಾ2 ಕಡತಗಳನುU ವಶಪH< ೊಳX ಾNರುತ?ೆ. ಮತು ,,ಎಂ. ಕ/ೇ }ಂದ ಾ@2ಗಳನುU ಮತು ಕಂSಾFಕRT ರವರುಗಳ 3ೇK ೆಗಳನುU ಪ1ೆಯ ಾNರುತ?ೆ. JA¦ ಾಮ ಾ ೆ ಸಂಬಂ <ದಂ=ೆ ಾಮ ಾ ಗಳ SೆಂಡTಗಳನುU ಇ- Fಕೂ T 7ಂd (ಆG ೈG) ಮೂಲಕ ಆ3ಾ...$ಸು2ದುO, ಇ- Fಕೂ T 7ಂd ಮೂಲಕ ಗು2 ೆ?ಾರರು ತಮP ದರಗಳನುU ನಮೂ]< ಆG ೈG ಮೂಲಕ%ೇ ಅr ೋt ಾಡು=ಾ!ೆ. $ಗ] ಪH<ದ. ] ಾಂಕದಂದು ಆG ೈG ಮೂಲಕ ,t ಾHದ $ಯ ಾನುgಾರ%ಾN ?ಾಖ ಾ2ಗಳನುU ಆr ೋt ಾH, 3ಾಗೂ ಸWlಾ ತPಕ ದರ ನಮೂ]<ರುವ ಅಹ ಗು2 ೆ?ಾರರ ಪiRಯನುU ಇಇ ರವರ ಕzೇ }ಂದ ಆG ೈG ಮೂಲಕ%ಾN 7ೕ ಾ ಾ ಗಳ ಕzೇ ೆ ಕಳ[@< ೊಡು=ಾ!ೆ. ತದ ನಂತರ ಸದ SೆಂಡTಗಳ[ ಾನ ಆಯುಕರು 3ಾಗು ಸಂಬಂ <ದ ಅ ಾ ಗK ೆ ಆG ೈG ಮೂಲಕ%ೆ ಸಲ0< ಅನು_ೕದ ೆYಾದ ನಂತರ, %ಾಪಸುe ಇಇ., ಕzೇ ೆ ಬರುತ?ೆ. ನಂತರ SೆಂಡT ¤ಯಮಗಳನುU Dಾ < ಾYಾ ?ೇಶವನುU ಾಯ Dಾಲಕ ಅ'ಯಂತರರು $ೕH ಆG ೈG ನ 0 ಮ=ೆ ಅr ೋt ಾಡು=ಾ!ೆ. ತದ ನಂತರದ 0 ಗು2 ೆ?ಾರರು gೈmï 'ಇಂŠ$ಯT ಮತು - ಎಇಇ.. ರವ!ೊಂ] ೆ $ಗ]ತ ಸ‡ಳದ 0 ೆಲಸವನುU DಾFರಂ'ಸು=ಾ!ೆ. ಾಮ ಾ ಯ ಸಂದಭ ದ 0, ಇಇ., ಎಇಇ, ಎಇ ಮತು wೆಇ ಗಳ[ ಸ‡ಳ ಪ Eೕಲ ೆ ಾಡು=ಾ!ೆ. ಾಮ ಾ ಪ€ಣ ೊಂಡ ನಂತರದ 0 ಗು2 ೆ?ಾರರು ಹಣ Dಾವ2 ಾಡಲು ಾಮ ಾ ೆ ತಗು ದ %ೆಚ‹ದ ,ಲ0ನುU Dಾವ2ಸಲು ಎಇ ಮತು ಎಇಇ ರವರು ,ಲ0ನುU ತYಾ < ಇಇ., ಕzೇ ೆ ಸ 0ಸು=ಾ!ೆ. ಇಇ., ರವರು ಕಡತವನುU ಪ Eೕ < ಮುಖ ಅ'ಯಂತರ ೆ ಮತು ಜಂi ಆಯುಕರ ಮೂಲಕ ಾನ ಆಯುಕ ೆ ಸ 0ಸು=ಾ!ೆ. ಾನ ಆಯುಕರು, ಸದ ಾಮ ಾ ಗಳನುU ಪ Eೕ < ವರ] $ೕಡುವಂ=ೆ =ಾಂ2Fಕ ಪ Œತರು ರವ ೆ ಆ?ೇಶ $ೕಡು=ಾ!ೆ. =ಾಂ2Fಕ ಪ Œತರು ಾಮ ಾ ಗಳನುU ಪ Eೕ < ವರ] $ೕHದ ನಂತರದ 0 ಾನ ಆಯುಕರು, ಾಮ ಾ ಸ YಾNದO 0 ಗು2 ೆ?ಾರ ೆ ಹಣ Dಾವ2ಸಲು ಮಂಜೂರು $ೕH ೇಂದF ಕzೇ ಯ ೆಕ9 jಾcೆ ೆ ವ ಾ @ಸು=ಾ!ೆ, ೆಕ9 jಾcೆ}ಂದ ಹಣ ಮಂಜೂ!ಾN ೇರ%ಾN ಗು2 ೆ?ಾರರ cಾ=ೆ ೆ ಹಣ ಜ7Yಾಗುತ?ೆ. ಗು2 ೆ?ಾರರ ಾಮ ಾ ಗಳ ಹಣ Dಾವ2ಯ ಅ ಾರ ಇಇ., ರವ ೆ ಇರುವ*]ಲ0, ಇ.ಇ. ರವರ ಕ/ೇ }ಂದ ಹಣ ಪ1ೆ]ರುವ ಹಲ%ಾರು ಕಂSಾFಕRT?ಾರರನುU "zಾರ•ೆ ಾH, 3ೇK ೆಗಳನುU ಪ1ೆದು ೊಂHರುತ?ೆ.

         ಪFಕರಣದ         ಆ!ೋ.ತ!ಾದ     EFೕ.
                                       EFೕ     ಎ .   EFೕ$%ಾ      !ೆHI        ರವರು       JA¦
 ಾ ಟ!ಾಯನಪ*ರ "+ಾಗ ಇ 0 ಇಇ ಆN ೆ.ಆT
                           ೆ ಆT.ಐ
                             ಆT ಐ.H
                                  H.ಎo
                                    ಎo $ಂದ $uೕಜ ೆ 7ೕ!ೆ ೆ ] ಾಂಕ




                                 ರವ!ೆ ೆ ಕತ ವ ದ ರ
23.08.2012 jAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 07.05.2015ರವ!ೆ          0 ುವ*ದು ಪ1ೆದ             ಾ@2}ಂದ
ಕಂಡುಬಂ]ರುತ?ೆ.

ಕಂಡುಬಂ]ರುತ?ೆ ಪFಕರಣದ ದೂ ನ 0 ಆ!ೋ.<ರುವಂ=ೆ, ಆ!ೋ.<ರುವಂ=ೆ ಆ!ೋ.ತ-

ಆ!ೋ.ತ-1 ರವರು ಲಂಚದ ಹಣ $ೕHದ ಗು2 ೆ?ಾರ ೆ ,o Dಾವ2ಸುವ ಸಂಬಂಧ ] ಾಂಕ 07.05.2015 ರಂದು ?ಾK ಸಮಯದ 0 ಆ!ೋ.ತ-1 ಆ!ೋ.ತ ರವರ ಬK}ದO ರೂ 7,000/- ಗಳ ಬ ೆ6 %ೈದ ರ ತDಾಸ•ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಆ!ೋ.ತರು ತಮP ಮ ೆ}ಂದ bv=ೆe ಾN ರೂ 7,000/-ಗಳನುU ಗಳನುU ತಂ]ರುವ*ದು ತಮP 3ೇK ೆಯ 0 2K<ದುO, ಸದ ಹಣವ* Yಾವ ಮೂಲದ ಹಣ%ಾNರುತ?ೆ ಎಂಬ ಬ ೆ6 ಆ!ೋ.ತ-1 ಆ!ೋ.ತ ರವರು ?ಾಖ ಾ2ಗಳನುU ಸ < 0 ರುವ*]ಲ0.

ಪFಕರಣದ ಆ!ೋ.-2 ಮುರK _ೕಹG, ರವರು ಗು2 ೆ?ಾರ!ಾNದುO, ,,ಎಂ. ಾ ಟ!ಾಯನಪ*ರ ವಲಯದ 0 ಅ ೇಕ ಗು2 ೆ ೆಲಸವನುU ಾHರುವ*ದು ತ$cಾ ಾಲದ 0 ಕಂಡು ಬಂ]ರುತ?ೆ. ?ಾK ] ಾಂಕ 07.05.2015ರಂದು ಆ!ೋ.ತ-2 ರವರು ಆ!ೋ.ತ-1ರವರ ಕzೇ ಯ 0 3ಾಜ!ಾNದುO, ಅವ ೆ gೇ ದ ರೂ 20,000/-ಗಳನುU vಟvಯ ಮೂಲಕ ,gಾHದO ಮತು ಸದ ಯರವರ ಬK ಇದO ರೂ 2,810/- ಒಟುR ರೂ 22,810/-ಗಳನುU, ಪಂಚರ ಸಮ ಮ ಅ ಾನತುಪH< ೊಂHರುತ?ೆ. ತ$cಾ %ೇJೆಯ 0 ಈ ಬ ೆ6 "zಾರ•ೆ ಾHದುO, ಆ!ೋ.ತ-2 ರವರು ತಮP 3ೇK ೆಯ 0 ತಮP ಬK ಇದO ರೂ 20,000/-ಗಳನುU ೋ ಾಯುಕ ೕಸರು ?ಾK ಾHದO ಂದ ಾಬ YಾN vಟvಯ ಮೂಲಕ ,gಾHರುವ*?ಾN 2K<, ತಮP ಬK ೆಲಸ ಾಡುವ ]ನ ಕೂ ಾs ಕ ೆ ಹಣ ಸಂ?ಾಯ ಾಡುವ ಸಲು%ಾN ಇವ ೆ gೇ ದ cಾ=ೆ ಸಂ. 1212500100508901, ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಾ ಂ•, ಸಹ ಾರ ನಗರ jಾcೆ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಇ 0 ] ಾಂಕ 06.05.2015 ರಂದು ರೂ 10,000/-ಗಳನುU 1ಾF ಾHರುವ*?ಾN ಮತು ರೂ 12,810/-ಗಳನುU ತಮP?ೆಂದು 2K<ರು=ಾ!ೆ. ] ಾಂಕ 06.05.2015 ರಂದು ರೂ 10,000/-ಗಳನುU 7ೕ ೆ 2K<ರುವ cಾ=ೆ}ಂದ "B 1ಾF ಾHರುವ*ದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ]ರುತ?ೆ. ಉK ೆ ರೂ. 12,810/-ಗಳ[ Yಾವ ಮೂಲದ ಹಣ ಎಂಬುದರ ಬ ೆ6 Yಾವ*?ೇ ಸಮಂಜಸ%ಾದ ಉತರ ಮತು ?ಾಖ ಾ2ಗಳನುU $ೕHರುವ*]ಲ0.

7ೕಲ9ಂಡ "ವರ•ೆಯಂ=ೆ 3ಾಗೂ ತ$cೆಯ ಸಮಯದ 0 ¥ÀqÉzÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À ಪ Eೕಲ ೆ}ಂದ, ] ಾಂಕ 07.05.2015gÀAzÀÄ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ PÀbÉÃj, ©©JA¦, ಾ ಟ!ಾಯನಪ*ರ "+ಾಗ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಕzೇ ಯ 7ೕ ೆ ?ಾK ಾHದ ಸಂದಭ ದ 0 ಆ!ೋ.ತ-1ರವರ ಆ!ೋ.ತ ರವರ ಸುಪ] ಯ ರ 0 ೇ ಾದ ,,ಎಂ. ಇ ಾcೆಯ ಮೂಲ ಕಡತಗJಾದ ..ಎ~ ಎ~.

                                                      ಎ~
ಸಂ.            ಗಳ[ cಾಸN ವ vYಾದ ಆ!ೋ.ತ-2,
ಸಂ 1,2,4,5 & 12ಗಳ[             ಆ!ೋ.ತ    ರವರ ಾTನ
                                              ಾTನ 0 ಪಂಚರ ಸಮ ಮ
ವಶಪH< ೊಂHದುO, ಆ!ೋ.ತ-
               ಆ!ೋ.ತ-1 ರವರು,
                         ರವರು ಸ ಾ          ಅ   ಾ YಾN,
                                                 YಾN ಅವ$ ೆ'ೆ ವ@< ೊiRರುವ,
                                                                 ೊiRರುವ

ಅವನ $ಯಂತFಣದ 0ರುವ ಮೂಲ ಕಡತಗಳನುU ಅಪF ಾŒಕ%ಾN ದುರುಪuೕಗಪH< ೊಂಡು ಮತು cಾಸN ವ v ಆ!ೋ.ತ-2 ಆ!ೋ.ತ ರವ ೆ ಮೂಲ ಕಡತಗಳನುU ಇಟುR ೊಳ[Xವಂ=ೆ ಅವ ಾಶ ಾH ೊiRರುವ*ದು 3ಾಗೂ ?ಾK ನ1ೆದ ಸಂದಭ ದ 0 ವಶಪH< ೊಳX ಾದ ರೂ 7,000/-ಗK ಗK ೆ

Yಾವ*?ೇ ಪ€ರಕ%ಾದ ಪ€ರಕ%ಾದ ?ಾಖ ೆಗಳನುU ಸ ಸ 0 ?ೆ ಇರುವ*ದು ಭFyಾRzಾರ ಪF2ಬಂಧ ಅ $ಯಮ 1988, ಕಲಂ 13(1) (< <) (ಇ ಇ) wೊ=ೆ ೆ 13(2) ಪF ಾರ.

ಾರ ಅಪ!ಾಧ%ೆಸNರುವ*ದು ತ$cಾ ಾಲದ 0 ಸಂಗF@ಸ ಾದ gಾPÁëöålಾರಗಳ[/?ಾಖ lಾರಗಳ[ ?ಾಖ ಾ2ಗKಂದ ದೃಢಪiRರುತ?ೆ ?ಾK ನ1ೆದ ಸಂದಭ ದ 0 ಆ!ೋ.ತ-2 ಆ!ೋ.ತ ರವರ cಾಸN ಾ ನ 0 ಆ!ೋ.ತ-1ರವರ ಆ!ೋ.ತ ರವರ ಸುಪ] ಸುಪ] ನ ರ 0 ೇ ಾದ ,,ಎಂ. ೆ ಸಂಬಂ <ದ ಮೂಲ ಕಡತಗಳ[ ಮತು ಅವರ ಬK ಅಕFಮ%ಾNದO ರೂ 12,810/- ಗಳನುU ?ಾK ಸಮಯದ 0 ಅ ಾನತುಪH< ೊಂHರುವ*ದು ಆ!ೋ.ತ-2ರವರು ಆ!ೋ.ತ ರವರು ಭFಷR ಅಥ%ಾ ಾನೂನು ಾ@ರ "lಾನದ ಮೂಲಕ ಆ!ೋ.ತ-1ರವರ ಆ!ೋ.ತ ರವರ 7ೕ ೆ ಪF+ಾವ ,ೕ ರುವ*ದು ..< <. ಾ{O 1988, ಕಲಂ 8ರ ರ ಪF ಾರ ಅಪ!ಾಧ%ೆಸNರುವ*ದು ಅಪ!ಾಧ%ೆಸNರುವ*ದು ದೃಢಪiRರುವ ದ ಂದ, ಂದ ಘನ ಾ Yಾಲಯ ೆ9 ?ೋyಾ!ೋಪಣ ಪiRಯನುU ಸ ಸ 0 ಾN?ೆ.

                 ಾN?ೆ

     ಸ‡ಳ: ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ                                       ¸À»/-

¢£ÁAPÀ:19.01.2023. (!ಾwೇ". ೆ)"

(Emphasis added)

A perusal at the complaint, the order of sanction and the summary

of the final report - charge sheet as obtaining in its column No.7

would unmistakably indicate that when search was conducted in the

office of accused No.1, the petitioner, several documents and files

were seized. Statements of several contractors were recorded.

₹7,000/- cash was found with the petitioner and accused No.2 was

caught throwing currency notes amounting ₹20,000/- out of the

window upon seeing the Lokayukta Police, which is recovered by

the Police later. In all, ₹22,810/- was found in possession of

accused No.2 and certain amount in the possession of the

petitioner. Vague justification or explanation for carrying the

amount was offered by the petitioner and accused No.2.

9. A perusal of all these materials does not inspire

confidence of this Court to entertain a petition under Section 482 of

the Cr.P.C. and allow the discharge application of the petitioner.

After filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner files an application

seeking his discharge from the array of accused along with accused

No.2. The concerned Court rejects the application not by a

perfunctory order but by a detailed order. Though the concerned

Court was not expected to conduct a mini trial, but has considered

every submission of the petitioner and accused No.2 and by an

elaborate order rejected the application. A perusal at the order

would clearly indicate that it is based on sound and cogent

reasoning. The stage set before the concerned Court now is

recording of evidence and commencement of trial or framing of

charges. At the stage of framing of chares, exercise of power under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and obliterating entire proceedings

unless circumstances warrant would run foul of the judgment of the

Apex Court in the case of SARANYA v. BHARATHI1 wherein it is

held as follows:

".... .... ....

10. Before considering the rival submissions of the parties, few decisions of this Court on the principles which the High Court must keep in mind while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC/at the stage of framing of the charge while considering the discharge application are required to be referred to and considered.

11. In Deepak [State of M.P. v. Deepak, (2019) 13 SCC 62 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 521] , to which one of us (Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) is the author, after considering the other binding decisions of this Court on the point, namely, Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687: (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986] , State of Rajasthan v. FatehkaranMehdu [State of Rajasthan v. FatehkaranMehdu, (2017) 3 SCC 198 : (2017)

2 SCC (Cri) 40 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 545] , and Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] , it is observed and held that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is a ground for "presuming" that the accused had committed the offence. It is observed and held that at that stage, the High Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. It is further observed and held that at this stage the High Court is not required to appreciate the evidence on record and consider the allegations on merits and to find out on the basis of the evidence

(2021) 8 SCC 583

recorded the accused chargesheeted or against whom the charge is framed is likely to be convicted or not.

12. In the present case, there is sufficient material on record raising the strong suspicion against Respondent 1 herein -- A-2 also. It has been found that A-2 Respondent 1 herein who was serving in the Secretariat and was in touch with the deceased and the complainant as she used to go to Xerox shop owned by the deceased and she introduced A-1 to the complainant and the deceased. It is specifically alleged that she said that she can manage to get the job/employment for the deceased but for that they have to pay. It is true that as per the case of the prosecution and even as per the statement of the complainant, an amount of Rs 5 lakhs was paid to A-1. However, during the course of the investigation, an amount of Rs 1 lakh 20 thousand has been recovered from the house of Respondent 1 herein -- A- 2 at the instance of A-2 herself. It may be true that the so- called confessional statement of Respondent 1 herein is inadmissible in evidence. However, it is to be noted that on the basis of such statement, there was a recovery of Rs 1 lakh 20 thousand from the house of A-2 -- Respondent 1 herein. The other aspect whether the recovered amount of Rs 1 lakh 20 thousand was the same amount which was given by the deceased and the complainant to A-1 is a matter of evidence to be considered during trial. Even the source of Rs 1 lakh 20 thousand might have to be explained by the accused.

13. It also appears that during the course of the investigation, the investigating officer has collected very important evidence in the form of call details between A-1 and A-2 which are in the proximity of the time of commission of offence and even thereafter. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when Respondent 1 herein has been chargesheeted for the offences under Sections 420, 302 read with Section 109 IPC and as observed hereinabove when there is ample material to show at least a prima facie case against Respondent 1 herein -- A-2, the High Court has committed a grave error in quashing the charge-sheet/entire criminal proceedings qua her in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. Quashing

the charge-sheet against the accused is not justified. The High Court has evidently ignored what has emerged during the course of investigation. The High Court has entered into the appreciation of the evidence and considered whether on the basis of the evidence, the accused is likely to be convicted or not, which as such is not permissible at all at this stage while considering the application under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court was not as such conducting the trial and/or was not exercising the jurisdiction as an appellate court against the order of conviction or acquittal. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court ought not to have quashed the charge-sheet qua Respondent 1 herein -- original Accused 2.

14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment [Bharathi v. State, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 16030] and order passed by the High Court quashing the charge- sheet/criminal proceedings in PRC No. 250 of 2019 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai for the offences under Sections 420, 302 read with Section 109 IPC qua Respondent 1 herein -- original Accused 2 deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Now the learned Magistrate to proceed further with the case, in accordance with law. It goes without saying that any observations made by this Court in the present order shall be confined to while considering the application under Section 482 CrPC and the trial in the aforesaid case shall proceed further on its own merits, in accordance with law on the basis of the evidence laid.

15. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms."

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court holds that the Court exercising jurisdiction under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be circumspect and restrain itself

in interfering with the order of rejection to discharge, which comes

to be rejected at the stage of framing of charge unless miscarriage

of justice is writ large, which is palpable and demonstrable, not in

disputed questions of fact. It is an admitted fact in the case at

hand that the matter has crossed the stage of framing of charge

and as of today 10 years has passed by after registration of the

crime. It is too late in the day for this Court to interfere after 10

years of registration of crime, at the stage of framing of charges, in