H.D. KUMARSWAMY FORMER CHIEF MINISTER OF KARNATAKA S/O. SRI. H.D. DEVEGOWDA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE BANGALORE CITY DIVISION BANGALORE REP. BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND SRI. YSM ABRAHAM T.J. S/O. SRI. JOSEPH T.A.@R

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed to quash the proceedings initiated in PCR No.27/2011. on the file of Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, Bangalore City and quash the order dated 03.12.2011 referring the complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., for investigation by Lokayukta Police.

(2.) I have heard Sri Hashmath Pasha, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri S.G.Rajendra Reddy learned counsel for I -respondent and II respondent Sri T.J.Abraham, Party -in -person.

(3.) SRI . Hashmath Pasha, learned counsel for petitioner has made following submissions: - I The averments of complaint that in the month of July 2006 Sri Janardhana Reddy, MLC, had alleged that petitioner had collected bribe of Rs.150 crores from miners, extracted from news item published in "The Hindu" newspaper dated 15.07.2006 are baseless.obviously without there being any supporting material. The learned Special Judge, without noticing these averments of complaint has referred the same for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which manifestly demonstrates lack of application of mind before making reference under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. II. The averments of complaint, regarding approval of mining lease in favour of M/s.Sai Venkateshwara Minerals, in respect of 550 acres of land in Jog, Thimmappagudi, Vhavihalli, NEB Range, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District, in violation of Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, accepted on their face value do not constitute an offence punishable under section 13(1)(d) r/w section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the P.C.Act'). III. The averments of complaint that the petitioner had renewed mining lease in favour of M/s.Janthakal Enterprises and exerted pressure on the Commissioner of Mines & Geology to issue permit for lifting old dump of 1 lakh metric tonne of low grade iron and manganese ore are baseless. In respect of these allegations, proceedings were initiated in PCR No.9/2011. After enquiry, summons were issued. The proceedings in PCR No.9/2011 were quashed by this court in Crl.P.No.4707/2011 dated 21.10.2011. In the circumstances, the allegations made against petitioner in the instant complaint, which is a second complaint, should not have been referred under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. IV. The grant of mining lease in favour of M/s.Shree Sai Venkateshwara Minerals was the subject matter of W.P.No.22348/2009 dated 26.08.2009, wherein this court has directed; - the State Government to pass orders revising exact availability of land and send recommendations to the Central Government for its approval and the Central Government on receipt of such recommendations to be made by the State Government shall pass orders, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and subject, to the decision of the revision pending before the Central Mines Tribunal against the lease granted in favour of VISL under section 17A of the MMDR Act. Therefore, grant of mining lease in favour of Shree Sai Venkateshwara Minerals do not attract an offence punishable under section 13(1)(d) r/w section 13(2) of the P.C.Act. V. The allegations made against the petitioner in respect of grant of an area of 550 acres of land in Jog, Thimmapagudi, Vhavihalli, NEB Range, was a matter of enquiry by the Lokayukta of Karnataka on the reference made by the Government of Karnataka under section 7 (2 -A)of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short, 'the Act"). The averments of complaint are reiterations of facts stated in the report submitted by Lokayukta vide page 269 of 464 Part -II. The Government of Karnataka has not so far accepted the report as required under section 12(4) of the Act. Therefore, complaint filed by a private citizen under section 200 Cr.P.C., is not maintainable. There is legal bar under sections 12& 14of the Act to investigate into the allegations made against petitioner. VI. The cognizance of an offence for alleged violation of Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 can be taken by a competent court only upon a complaint lodged by a competent officer under section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, MMDR Act'). VII. The petitioner is a Member of Parliament and he was the former Chief: Minister of Karnataka State, therefore, there must be a suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegations made in the first information report. The preliminary enquiry is necessary; ultimately if allegations are found baseless, that would cause irreparable loss and injustice to petitioner. VIII. The learned Special Judge without application of mind has referred the complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Therefore, complaint registered in PCR No.27/2011, on the file of Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, Bangalore City and subsequent reference under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., for investigation by Lokayukta Police are liable to be quashed.