New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 25) dismissed a plea of Union minister and former Karnataka chief minister HD Kumaraswamy seeking quashing of the proceedings against him in a corruption case relating to de-notification of two plots of land.
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Rajesh Bindal refused to entertain Kumaraswamy’s plea against an order of the Karnataka High Court refusing to quash proceedings against him.
What was the case?
The case relates to one private complaint lodged by one MS Mahadeva Swamy before the special judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act in Bengaluru seeking prosecution of Kumaraswamy and others, alleging that de-notification of two plots of land in Halagevaderahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobii, Bengaluru South Taluk, was carried out for pecuniary gains during tenure of Kumaraswamy as the Karnataka chief minister between June 2006 and October 2007,
The state of Karnataka opposed Kumaraswamy’s plea before the apex court seeking quashing of proceedings against him.
The apex court had earlier in January 2021 issued notice to the complainant and the Karanataka government on kumaraswamy’s plea.
What did Kumaraswamy submit?
The counsel representing Kumaraswamy had argued before the top court earlier that in view of the amendment made in section 19(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act in 2018, a sanction was required even though Kumaraswamy was not holding the office at the time when the cognisance was taken.
The top court had issued notice on Kumaraswamy’s plea limited to the question as to whether without sanction, the special judge could have taken cognizance.
What did the High Court say?
The High Court on October 9, 2020 dismissed Kumaraswamy’s plea seeking quashing of the proceedings against him, saying there were sufficient materials to proceed against him for the alleged offences and there was no ground to quash the proceedings against him in the absence of any material to show that the action initiated against him was an abuse of process of court and it had resulted in failure of justice.
