Case filed against seven senior cops over graft

Judge KM Radhakrishna passed the order on May 30 after hearing a private complaint filed by Mohan Kumar A, a realtor, against the accused officers.
Image used for representational purpose.
Image used for representational purpose.

BENGALURU: Taking cognisance of several offences punishable under provisions of the IPC and Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act against seven police officers, including two IPS officers, over their alleged illegal action against a private party for extraneous reasons, the special court to deal with cases registered under the PC Act ordered that a case be registered against them.

The seven accused officials are then Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) M K Thammaiah, Inspector SR Veerendra Prasad, DySP Prakash Reddy, Inspector Manjunath Hoogar, DySPs Vijay Hadagali and Uma Prashanth, and ADGP Seemanthkumar Singh. They were then working in the now disbanded Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB).

Judge KM Radhakrishna passed the order on May 30 after hearing a private complaint filed by Mohan Kumar A, a realtor, against the accused officers. He filed the complaint alleging that he had been implicated by the accused, in a case, which damaged his reputation, based on a fabricated entry ‘Mohan RT Nagar with two mobile phone numbers, take - 4 files back 1 file’, made in the diary which was claimed to be seized from a BDA official, after the high court quashed proceedings against the latter for abuse of process of law.

Court takes note of misuse of power

The court noted that documents prima facie disclosed the arbitrariness on the part of accused No 1 to 5, who had thrown procedures to the wind and sidelined investigation against BDA officials for corrupt activities. They also failed to inquire into allegations about the case diary and entries therein before proceeding against the complainant, a private person. Thus prima facie, allegations of misuse of power, criminal misconduct, house trespass, criminal intimidation, attempt to extort money, fabrication of documents, suppression of truth from the court to proceed against a private person who claims to be an unconnected to the allegations, were strengthened against the accused, the court added.

The court further stated that accused no. 1 to 5 were working under the supervision of Uma Prashanth and Seemanthkumar Singh, accused no. 6 and 7. Therefore, at this stage, the allegations that all illegalities committed by accused no. 1 to 5 was under the guidance and instructions of accused no. 6 and 7 in furtherance of their conspiracy and common intention hold some force. The alleged illegalities by public servants would be beyond the scope of their official limits, and cannot be termed to be part of their duties, the court said.

Case history

According to the order, the accused registered the FIR against BDA officials over illegal allotment of sites in collusion with some agents, by only mentioning their designations on November 19, 2021, without prior administrative approval as per Section 17 of Prevention of Corruption Act. A diary of the year 2013 was allegedly seized from the Deputy Secretary of BDA but it was not reported to court. In fact, the Deputy Secretary was not working at BDA in 2013.

Further, almost five months after the registration of FIR, accused Vijay Hadagali obtained a search warrant from court to search the house bearing No 62 at Manorayanapalya, as if it belongs to the complainant, but it was not executed on the ground that the complainant was not residing in the said house.

Prakash Reddy and Manjunath Hoogar, on the strength of the old warrant, entered the complainant’s house with mediapersons on December 22, 2022, and seized some property documents and his two mobile phones. They allegedly threatened the complainant that they would arrest and parade him on the streets unless he disclosed the passwords and patterns of his mobiles, and succeeded in accessing personal information which is violation of personal liberty.

Related Stories

No stories found.

The New Indian Express