Criminal Petition No. 7485 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9825 CRL.P No. 7485 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7485 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SMT. ARATHI A. LAD, W/O SRI. ANIL LAD, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OFFICE AT NO.12, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, RMV EXTENSION 2ND STAGE, NTI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 094. (BY SMT.LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH SRI N. GOWTHAM RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: 1. STATE S.I.T LOKAYUKTHA,
Legal Reasoning
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH LOKAYUKTA, BANGALORE - 560 001. Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Legal Reasoning
2. SRI H.ANIL LAD, S/O LATE HEROJI LAD, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OFFICE AT 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, RMV EXTENSION, 2ND STAGE, NTI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 094. (BY SRI B.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI AKASH V.T., ADVOCATE FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO.5731/2024 PENDING ON - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9825 CRL.P No. 7485 of 2024 THE FILE OF LXXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR IN DEALING WITH MLA/MP CASES, AT BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 379, 409, 447, 420 READ WITH SECTION 120 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, SECTION 13(2) READ WITH 13(1)(D) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 (HEARAFTER REFERRED TO AS PC ACT) AND SECTION 21 AND 23 READ WITH SECTION 4(1) AND 4(1)(A) OF MINES AND MINERALS DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION ACT, 1957 (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS MMDR ACT), 2017 (ANNEXURE-A). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard Smt.Lakshmi Iyengar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri N.Gowtham Raghunath, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri B.S.Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Akash V.T., learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.5 in Spl.C.Nos.31/2023 and 33/2023 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.5731/2024 pending on the file of LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases related to elected former and sitting - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9825 CRL.P No. 7485 of 2024 MPs/MLAs in the State of Karnataka) for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 409, 447, 420 read with Section 120 of the Indian Penal code, 1860, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 21 and 23 read with Section 4(1) and 4(1)(a) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. 3. Upon initiation of the proceedings by respondent No.1-S.I.T., Karnataka Lokayuktha an order came to be passed on 03.08.2024 whereby issued ad-interim order of attachment as enumerated under Section 3 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, attaching the scheduled properties of the petitioner-accused No. 5, i.e., item Nos.1 and 2 in the schedule. 4. During the pendency of this petition, respondent No.2, who is none other than the husband of the petitioner filed an affidavit before the trial Court and by virtue of an order passed by this Court on 05.12.2024, at the instance of the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 for exchange of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9825 CRL.P No. 7485 of 2024 the property of the petitioner-accused No.5 with that of the property proposed to be placed by respondent No.2, an order came to be passed by this Court directing the jurisdictional Sub-registrar to look into the documents and determine the value in accordance with law and place it before the concerned Court by the next date as respondent No.2 provided an alternate property for attachment in place of the property of the petitioner- accused No.5 on the ground that the property so placed by respondent No.2 is valued more than Rs.20.00 crores as against the property of the petitioner-accused No. 5, which was around Rs.12.00 crores. 5. Respondent No.2 filed an affidavit on 26.09.2024 along with the certified copy of the sale deed, certified copy of the encumbrance certificate, copy of the RTC and copy of the valuation. Apparently, it is seen that the valuation of the property described by the approved valuer at page 41 describes the value of the property to be Rs.20,56,78,750/-. Pursuant to the report filed by the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9825 CRL.P No. 7485 of 2024 approved valuer on behalf of respondent No.2 and the order passed by this Court for verification and evaluation of the same from the office of the Sub-registrar, Chikkamagaluru, a report has been filed by the Sub- registrar, which has also been annexed on 07.01.2025, which agrees the said valuation to be correct, but it is valued at Rs.20,70,04,750/-. However, the value is more than Rs.20.00 crores. Hence, it would be in the interest of respondent No.1 that the alternate property be produced by respondent No.2. Hence, seeks an ad interim attachment against the property of the petitioner-accused No.5 for time being, till the matter is further adjudicated before the trial Court. 6. Learned counsel for respondents would not have much objection to this for the reason that this property so provided by respondent No.2, is worth more than Rs.20.00 crores, rather than the attached property of petitioner- accused No.5, which is around Rs.12.00 crores. Therefore, the purpose of respondent No.2 is also met with and an - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9825 CRL.P No. 7485 of 2024 alternative property facilitated by the petitioner-accused No.5, which is provided as security in the interest of respondent No. 2. 7. Under the circumstances, without going into the merits and demerits of the petition with regard to its maintainability or otherwise, this petition would be disposed of by directing the trial Court to accept the alternate property as security by way of attachment and the matter could be decided keeping all the contentions of the parties open in accordance with law. Accordingly, the
Decision
petition is disposed of. 8. Therefore, respondent No.2 shall produce the necessary documents pertaining to the alternate property, i.e., now being sought to be provided as against that of the petitioner-accused No.5 property, both item Nos.1 and 2, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9825 CRL.P No. 7485 of 2024 9. It is needless to mention that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter including the maintainability. 10. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. 11. In view of the alternate property having been provided by respondent No.2 as security to that of the petitioner’s property, the petitioner-accused No.5 is at liberty to seek for release and discharge of the property, which is attached as per item Nos.1 and 2 of the schedule in the criminal miscellaneous application. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN CT: BHK