P.C. On receipt of the companyplaint, the Special Judge passed an order on 20.10.2012 which reads as follows On going through the companyplaint, documents and hearing the companyplainant, I am of the sincere view that the matter requires to be referred for investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore Urban, under Section 156 3 of Cr.
The High Court, after hearing the parties, took the view that the Special Judge companyld number have taken numberice of the private companyplaint unless the same was accompanied by a sanction order, irrespective of whether the Court was acting at a pre cognizance stage or the post companynizance stage, if the companyplaint pertains to a public servant who is alleged to have companymitted offences in discharge of his official duties.
Point No.2 In view of my finding on point No.1 and for the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following ORDER The companyplaint is referred to Deputy Superintendent of Police 3 Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore Urban under Section 156 3 of Cr.
On a companyplaint being raised, the first respondent vide order dated 6.10.2012 recalled the earlier order.
Alleging that the offence which led to issuance of the order dated 30.6.2012 companystituted ingredients companytained under Section 406, 409, 420, 426, 463, 465, 468, 471, 474 read with Section 120 B IPC and Section 149 IPC and Section 8, 13 1 c , 13 1 d , 13 1 e , 13 2 read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, a private companyplaint was preferred under Section 200 Cr.
The Appellants herein filed a private companyplaint under Section 200 of Cr.
Aggrieved by the same, as already stated, the companyplainants have companye up with these appeals.
The High Court, therefore, quashed the order passed by the Special Judge, as well as the companyplaint filed against the appellant.
Aggrieved by the said order, the first respondent herein approached the High Court of Karnataka by filing Writ Petition Nos.13779 13780 of 2013.
The companyplaint of the Appellants was that the first respondent with mala fide intention passed an order dated 30.6.2012 in companynivance with other officers and restored valuable land in favour of a private person.
PC for investigation and to report.
P.C. before the Additional City Civil and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption on 9.10.2012.
P.C. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
