- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3782 CRL.P No. 1076 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1076 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O SRI. GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 2. SRI. C. GOVINDARAJU S/O SRI. CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. BOTH THE PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT NO.17, 18, 3RD CROSS, NANJAMBA AGRAHARA, 2ND MAIN, CHAMARAJAPET, BENGALURU 560 018 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001. Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3782 CRL.P No. 1076 of 2018 2. MR. K. RAVISHANKAR S/O M.S. KRISHNA REDDY, OCCUPATION: POLICE INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE KARNATAKA, LOKAYUKTHA, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.C.NO.18/2016 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.82/2012 FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 13(1)(e) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT AND SECTION 120(B) OF IPC OF KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, BENGALURU ON THE FILE OF XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER Petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 in Spl.C.C.No.18/2016 on the file of the learned XXIII Additional City Civil & Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, Bengaluru City (arising out of Crime - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3782 CRL.P No. 1076 of 2018 No.82/2012 of Karnataka Lokayukta Police) registered for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120(B) of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Police Inspector of Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru on credible information, collected the information regarding the wealth amassed and properties acquired by accused No.1, who was the elected representative being the Corporator of Ward No.141, BBMP i.e., Azadnagar, Bengaluru. It is stated that in collusion with accused No.2, who is the husband of accused No.1, she amassed the wealth which is disproportionate to her known source of income and thereby, committed the aforesaid offences. As per source report, accused Nos.1 and 2 have wealth which is 166% disproportionate to the known source of income of accused No.1. On the basis of same, FIR came to be registered and the investigation was undertaken. After - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3782 CRL.P No. 1076 of 2018 investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. As per the charge sheet, the accused have amassed wealth disproportionate to their known source of income and the percentage of the same is 62.60%. Therefore, it is the contention of the prosecution that accused have committed offences punishable under Section 13 (1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial Court took cognizance of the offences and initially framed charge against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the above said offences. In the meantime, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not addressed his arguments. Hence, his argument is taken as Nil. Heard Sri.Venkatesh S. Arbhatti, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the materials on record. 4. In view of the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the respondents and on going through the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3782 CRL.P No. 1076 of 2018 materials on record, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the Petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" 5. My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative' for the following: R E A S O N S 6. The Police Inspector attached to Karnataka Lokayukta police collected the information about the assets and liabilities, income and expenditure of accused Nos.1 and 2 and has filed the source report holding that the accused have amassed disproportionate wealth which is about 166% to their known source of income and thereby, committed the above said offences. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed to the effect that the disproportionate assets amassed by the accused were 62.60% and they have committed the offences as stated above. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3782 CRL.P No. 1076 of 2018 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that initially, learned Special Judge had framed charge for the offences committed by accused Nos.1 and 2. At that point of time, petitioners have approached this Court by filing similar petition in Crl.P.No.6129/2016 seeking quashing of framing of the charge and also the entire proceedings initiated against them. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.11.2017 considered the contentions taken by the petitioners and directed the petitioners to file necessary application seeking their discharge and also directed the trial Court to consider such application by providing opportunity to both parties and to dispose of the application within one month from the date of application. 8. It is stated that after disposal of Crl.P.No.6129/2016, petitioners have moved an application before the Special Court under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge. The trial Court vide order dated 06.01.2018 passed a detailed order dismissing the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3782 CRL.P No. 1076 of 2018 application filed by the petitioners under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. and refusing to discharge them, holding that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners. 9. It is pertinent to note that the trial Court has rejected the discharge application filed by the petitioners as per order dated 06.01.2018. This petition came to be filed by the petitioners on 07.02.2018 but the petitioners are not challenging the order dated 06.01.2018 passed by the trial Court refusing to discharge the accused. But, on the other hand, they are again seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 10. On going through the order dated 06.01.2018, the Trial Court has taken into consideration the voluminous documents produced by the Investigating Officer while filing the charge sheet and for forming the opinion that accused have amassed wealth disproportionate to their own assets and income which is about 62.60% higher than the known source of the income. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3782 CRL.P No. 1076 of 2018 materials on record prima facie disclose the commission of offences and there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused by framing the charge. 11. The Investigating Officer has cited as many as 73 witnesses to speak in support of the case made out by the prosecution. It is stated that accused No.1 is the elected representative being the Corporator of Ward No.141, Azadnagar BBMP, Bengaluru elected during the year 2010. The check period is from 05.04.2010 to 09.11.2012. The FIR came to be registered on 08.11.2012 and the raid was held on 09.11.2012. As per the final report, the worth of the assets amassed by the petitioners during the check period is Rs.5,11,75,506/- and the expenses during this period was Rs.3,89,52,690/- whereas, the income from the known source of the income was only Rs.5,54,28,503/- and disproportionate asset is Rs.3,47,29,693/-. In support of the same, the Investigating Officer has collected sufficient materials. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3782 CRL.P No. 1076 of 2018 12. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, as per Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the burden is on the accused to account satisfactorily for the money/assets in his hands. When there are sufficient materials to constitute the offences in question, the accused are liable to face the trial. They are at liberty to take necessary defence before the trial Court. Since there are strong prima facie materials against the petitioners to constitute the offences, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief in this petition. 13. Accordingly, I answer the point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:- ORDER The petition is dismissed. It is noticed that the criminal petition was filed in the year 2018 and since for more than six years, the matter is pending before the trial Court. Therefore, the trial Court is - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:3782 CRL.P No. 1076 of 2018 directed to expedite the trial in the matter without further loss of time. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MH/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 CT:SNN