Friday, November 22, 2024
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe

Supreme Court issues notice on former Karnataka CM Yediyurappa plea to quash FIR in corruption case

A notice was issued on the plea by former Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa by the Supreme Court against the Karnataka High Court’s order refusing to quash an FIR registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The High Court had refused to quash the FIR registered against Yediyurappa for allegedly de-notifying parcels of land and allotting it to entrepreneurs during his tenure as the Deputy Chief Minister of the state between February 2006 and October 2007.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli stayed the High Court order dated December 22, 2020.

The Karnataka Lokayukta Police on December 21, 2015 had filed an FIR on a private complaint filed by Vasudeva Reddy for the offence under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Yediyurappa’s counsel told the Supreme Court that the High Court had quashed the very same FIR, which was also registered against accused No 1 Raghunath Vishwanath Deshpande on October 9, 2015.

As per the Counsel, Raghunath had said that investigation against the former CM on the very same FIR was illegal and amounted to abuse of the process of law.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice John Michael Cunha, while refusing to quash the FIR against the former CM, had also pulled up the police for delaying the investigation against Yeddyurappa.

The High Court had observed that the circumstances clearly indicated that the delay was “intentional and deliberate”.

As per Justice Cunha, since the petitioner was no longer holding the office of Deputy Chief Minister, which he was holding as on the date of commission of the alleged offence, there was no requirement of obtaining prior sanction.

Citing the Abhay Singh Chautala vs Central Bureau of Investigation (2011) 7 SCC 141, the Apex Court rejected the order of reference made by the Senior Counsel for petitioner. The Senior Counsel had stated that the order of reference made by the High Court was bad for non-production of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Previous article
Next article
spot_img

News Update