10

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
[(ORDER XXII RULE 2(1)(A)]
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. _______OF 2022

WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF

[Arising out of the impugned InterimOrder dated 02.11.2022

passed by the Hon’ble High Court at Karnataka, Bengaluru in
Criminal Petition No.10282/2022, whereby the Hon’ble Court
has allowed the I.A. No.1/2022, thereby Court has stayed the
further investigation against the Respondent – Accused No.12
in Cr. No.356/2022]

POSITION OF PARTIES
In the In this
High Court Court
IN THE MATTER OF:

The State of Karnataka

Attibele Police Station
Represented by
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru – 560 001,
KARNATAKA STATE.
...Respondent ...PETITIONER
VERSUS:

B.K. Kishore Kumar

S/o B M Krishnappa
Aged about 40 years
 11
Working as Inspector of Police,
Internal Security Division,
R/o No.99, BhuvaneshwariNilaya,
Basavanapura, Gottigere Post,
Bannerghatta Road,
Bengaluru – 560 068
And also ISD Dept. Bengaluru
Royal Heritage Layout,
Basavanapura,
Bengaluru South Taluk- 560068.
KARNATAKA STATE.
...Petitioner ...RESPONDENT
To
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND
HIS LORDSHIP’S OTHER COMPANION JUSTICES OF
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THEPETITIONER

ABOVE NAMED:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

1. The impugned interim Order dated 02.11.2022

passed by the Hon’ble High Court at Karnataka, Bengaluru in
Criminal Petition No.10282/2022, whereby the Hon’ble High
Court has allowed the I.A. No.1/2022 filed by the Respondent –
Accused. The State is aggrieved by the interim impugned order,
wherein, it has ordered to stay the further investigation against
the Respondent – Accused No.12. Hence, on such limited
grounds, the State is preferring this Special Leave Petition.
 12
2. QUESTIONS OF LAW:-

The following questions of law arise for consideration by

this Hon’ble Apex Court:

2.1 Whether the impugned Order, in purported exercise

of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, exceeded its jurisdiction by erroneously examining
the Accused defence?

2.2 Whether the impugned Order ought not to have

entertained as the matter is still under investigation?

2.3 Whether the impugned Order ought not to have been

granted only on the news even when the same is not pleaded in
Petition?

2.4 Whether the impugned Order ought to have

refrained from granting the relief of stay & consequent protection
from arrest, when already the Accused had moved the High
Court for the relief of anticipatory bail and the same was pending
consideration before the roster Judge?

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4(2):-

The Petitioner – State of Karnataka that no other petition

seeking Leave to Appeal has been filed by him against the
impugned interimOrder dated 02.11.2022 passed by the High
Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in Criminal Petition
No.10282/2022, whereby the Hon’ble High Court has allowed
the I.A. No.1/2022, thereby further investigation against the
 13
Respondent – Accused No.12 in Cr. No.356/2022 is hereby
stayed.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 6:

The Annexures P-1 to P-5 produced along with the Special

Leave Petition are true copy of the pleadings/documents which
formed part of the records of the case in the Court/Tribunal
below against whose order the Leave to Appeal is sought for in
this petition.

5. GROUNDS:

5.1 The impugned Order staying the investigation

violated the law established by this Hon'ble Court in the case of
SIDDHARTH MUKESH BHANDARI V. STATE OF
GUJARAT, 2021 SCC ONLINE 3345.

5.2 During the hearing on the Petitioner - State's

application, the Prosecution, represented by the State Public
Prosecutor, filed detailed Objections and contended that, based
on the aforementioned recommendation of Hon'ble Justice R.M.
Lodha Committee, a letter was issued to Inspector General of
Registration Karnataka, wherein, there was a specific request
from the Committee directing the concerned jurisdictional Sub-
Registrars within AnekalTaluk to take necessary steps for not
effecting the Registration, Mutation / Sale, etc., of the properties
wherein M/s. PACL and its group associated companies have any
right, title, or interest, as only the Committee is authorised to sell
these properties as per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
However, contrary to the said direction of the Hon'ble Apex
Court, as well as the information provided by the Hon'ble Justice
 14
R.M. Lodha Committee, the case against the Respondent is that
he was instrumental in getting the Sale Deed registered in
Benami transaction in the names of Accused No.3 -
Chandramohan, Accused No.4 - Srinivasan, and Accused No.5 -
Phruthvin.G.

5.3 It was contended that upon getting information

about registration of sale deed referred supra, which is in clear
violation of the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court and R.M.
Lodha Committee, the investigation proceeded further by arrest
of Accused Nos.1, 3 and 5. Upon their arrest and interrogation of
six Accused i.e., Accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 11 and the
statement of Complainant and witness Sridhar, RohithGowda,
Muniraju, they have clearly stated the active involvement of
present Respondent - Accused No.12 in getting properties
registered in their 'benami' names. In this regard, documents
were also produced along with the Statement of Objections. The
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has not given primary
importance to the materials which were produced. The Hon’ble
Court failed to notice that upon getting to know the involvement
of Accused No.12, pursuant to such information obtained during
interrogation, Investigating Officer has sent Notice under Section
41-A of Cr.P.C., requesting the Accused/Respondent herein to
participate in the ongoing investigation. In response to the
aforementioned Notice, the Accused/Respondent appeared in
person, and his cell-phone was seized for the purpose of
investigation. The said mobile was sent to the CEN Police
Station for examination, and upon examination by the said
Department, it was revealed that the present Respondent had
formatted the entire handset before handing it over to the Police.
 15
The said act of the Respondent clearly demonstrates that he
destroyed crucial evidence, which is a penal offence under
Section 201 of IPC. Further, Investigation Officer has also got
information that the present Accused/Respondent was using
another mobile bearing IMEI numbers (1) 353834105357280 and
(2) 353413110424470. Hence, he was requested to produce the
same for investigation, but upon receipt of the said Notice, the
Accused/Respondent kept the said mobile in 'switched off' mode,
and did not co-operate with the investigation by producing the
same. Further, after receipt of such Notice, the
Accused/Respondent has absconded and still he is on large.
Hence, the said conduct of the Accused who is also Police
Officer creates reasonable doubts about his active involvement in
the present crime registered against him. Therefore, he is not
entitled for quashment of the present proceedings as claimed.

5.4 Further, it was contended that the Investigating

Officer has collected CDRs of other co-accused persons and
Whatsapp details from the mobile of Accused No.1, which was
seized during the course of investigation, and that said data
reveals that the present Petitioner was in constant touch and
contact with the co-accused on the date of registration of the said
documents. Therefore, his claim of innocence contradicts the
Investigation materials available with the investigating officer.

5.5 The Order of the Hon’ble Court is perverse and

unreasonable on the ground that it has taken completely different
view of the investigation materials collected by the Investigating
Officer against Accused No.12 only upon the observation of the
Hon’ble Judge, in para-9, that the dispute between the Police
Officer and the Politician. It is only on the background of such
 16
alleged quarrel between the Politician and the Accused No.12
that the Prosecution has implicated Accused No.12, which is
contrary to the said observations made by the Hon’ble High
Court.

5.6 The investigation reveals that the Sale Deeds which

are bone of contentions in the entire case were admittedly
executed contrary to the restrictions and restraints of the Order of
Justice Lodha Committee. Further, the Court considered the fact
that, despite the fact that the documents were registered in the
year 2022, the payment shown in the said Sale Deed gives the
details of the year 2011. Hence, prima-facie, the said transaction
appears to be 'bogus', and thus, the investigation ought to have
been conducted in this line, and it can happen only when the
custodial interrogation of the Accused No.12 is done. However,
because the further investigation against Accused No.12 has been
stayed, the entire investigation along these lines has been stalled,
which will have a direct impact on the ongoing investigation.

5.7 It is submitted that, at the stage of Petition for

quashing, the impugned order ought not to have looked into news
items that fall into the realm of gossip/hearsay and do not
constitute evidence of sterling quality for the purposes of being
believed as a defence document.

5.8 The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has also

failed to note that, apart from the involvement of the Accused
No.12 in the registration of Sale Deed referred to above, the
direct involvement of the Accused was forthcoming from
recovery of mobile phone from the Accused No.12, wherein he
destroyed the crucial evidence by formatting the entire mobile
 17
handset. However, a scientific examination of Accused No.1's
mobile phone revealed that he was also in contact with Accused
No.12. As a result, the Court ought not to have granted a blanket
stay of the investigation in the case of Accused No.12 is
concerned. Further, Respondent works as a Police Inspector in
the Internal Security Division in Bangalore Division, and after
taking casual leave from September 27 to September 30, 2022, he
has been 'unauthorised absent' from duty since October 1, 2022.
He was suspended from service on October 15, 2022, and is
currently missing.

5.9 According to the Complaint averment and the

alleged transaction, the Respondent is under the surveillance of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court appointed Committee, and despite the
direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which is also known to the
Sub-Registrar, the Respondent and other Accused persons
created the Sale Deeds and committed serious economic offence
that has a large bearing on the economy of the country. As a
result of the aforementioned assertion, the Respondent has failed
to establish any grounds for granting the bail///, and it is therefore
liable to be dismissed with costs.

5.10 The grounds raised by the Accused in Para 3 of the

order are incorrectly considered by the impugned order. The
impugned order ignores the well-established legal principle that
the aforementioned grounds are his defence and cannot be
investigated under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Allegations of bad faith
cannot be used to seek a restraining order. ///// The chat
between A.1 & A.12 on 03.01.2022 and 10.01.2022 clearly
shows that A.12 was actively involved in the preparation of sale
deed of the lands and organizing the registration process. The
 18
Whatsapp of A.1 char dated 13.08.2022 shows that A.12 was
aware of the fact that the lands were before the justice (Retd.)
R.M. Lodha Committee.

5.11 The Court ignored the argument raised at the bar

that the first informant did not even name the Accused No.12 in
the Complaint, which would have been the case if the Petitioner
and the so-called Politician had acted in bad faith. The
Investigating Officer of the case began investigating this angle
and discovered that Accused No.12 is the mastermind only after
Accused No.12 called him on 20.09.2022 to intimidate him.

5.12 That the said Accused had already moved the High
Court for anticipatory bail, which was pending consideration
before the roster Judge; that the impugned order indirectly
protected him from arrest by staying the investigation.

6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

6.1 Because the Petitioner would be unduly prejudiced if

the impugned interim orderto the extent challenged herein is
allowed to stand. The Petitioner is fully confident of a positive
outcome in the present Special Leave Petition and no prejudice
would be caused if the interim relief as prayed for herein is
granted.

6.2 Because the balance of convenience is in favor of the

Petitioner to grant the interim relief as prayed herein and on the
other hand, no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent in
allowing the prayer for interim relief.

7. MAIN PRAYER:
 19
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that in the
aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Hon'ble Apex Court may
be pleased to:

a) GRANT Special Leave to Appeal to the

Petitioners against the impugned interim Order
dated 02.11.2022 passed by the High Court of
Karnataka, Bengaluru in Criminal Petition
No.10282/2022, whereby the Hon’ble High Court
has allowed the I.A. No.1/2022;

b) Set-aside the impugned interim Order dated

02.11.2022 passed by the High Court of
Karnataka, Bengaluru in Criminal Petition
No.10282/2022, whereby the Hon’ble High Court
has allowed the I.A. No.1/2022, in so far as
permitting the Prosecution to; and

c) Pass such other order or orders to this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case, in interests of justice
and equity.

8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that in the

aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to:

a) Pass an ex-parte ad-interim order of stay, staying the

operation of the impugned interim Order dated
02.11.2022 passed by the High Court of
 20
Karnataka, Bengaluru in Criminal Petition
No.10282/2022, whereby the Hon’ble High Court
has allowed the I.A. No.1/2022;

b) Pass such other interim orders or directions as this

Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case, in the
interests of justice and equity.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER AS

IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

DRAWN BY: FILED BY:

(B.J. ROHITH) (SHUBHRANSHU PADHI)

HIGH COURTADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER-
GOVERNMENT PLEADER. STATE OF KARNATAKA.

NEW DELHI
DRAWN ON:
FILED ON:
 21
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. OF 2022

IN
CRIMINAL PETITIONNo.10282 OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

The State of Karnataka

Rep. by Attibele Police Station ...PETITIONER

VERSUS :
B.K. Kishore Kumar .. RESPONDENT

CERTIFICATE

“Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only

to pleadings before the Courts whose order is challenged and the
other documents relied upon in those proceedings. No additional
facts, documents or grounds have been taken or relied upon by
the Petitioner in this Special Leave Petition. It is further certified
that the copies of the documents/Annexures attached to the
Special Leave Petition are necessary to answer the question of
law raised in the Petition for consideration of this Hon’ble Court.
This certificate is given on the basis of the instructions given by
the Petitioner/person authorized by the Petitioner whose
Affidavit is filed in support of the Special Leave Petition”.

Dated at New Delhi, this November, 2022.

(SHUBHRANSHU PADHI)
ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER –
STATE OF KARNATAKA.