BENGALURU: The special court for trial of criminal cases against sitting and former MPs/MLAs on Tuesday kept the decision pending, for now, on accepting or rejecting the ‘B’ report (closure report) by the Lokayukta police giving a clean chit to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and his family members in the MUDA case.
It permitted the Lokayukta to conduct further investigation into the role of other accused and file a conclusive report on or before May 7, 2025, the next date of hearing.
The court said the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) is also considered an aggrieved person to a limited extent and no order is passed on permitting it to file a protest petition at this stage. This is because the closure report is neither accepted nor rejected, it added.
Judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat kept answers for following three questions pending - Whether the complainant has made out grounds to set aside ‘B’ final report; what would be the appropriate procedure to be adopted and whether ED can be permitted to come on record and file necessary objections to the ‘B’ final report.
Acting on the order passed by the special court on the private complaint filed by Mysuru-based activist Snehamayi Krishna, the Lokayukta police had filed the closure report, stating that the allegations were not established against all the four accused -- Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, his wife Parvathy BM, his brother-in-law Mallikarjuna Swamy and Devaraju J -- on the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) allotting 14 compensatory sites to Parvathy.
Admitting that there was definitely a financial loss to the MUDA exchequer because of the allotment of sites to Parvathy illegally, the Lokayukta police stated that permission is required under Section 173 (8) of CrPC to conduct further probe to quantify the total loss caused because of illegal allotment of sites in a similar manner to various beneficiaries by then MUDA commissioner DB Natesh, his predecessors and successors between 2016 and 2024.
Acceding to the Lokayukta police request, the special court said its outcome should be considered along with the report already filed. It would be appropriate to accept or reject the ‘B’ report based on further investigation material, if any, to be filed, the court said.
Alleging that the IO cannot file the final report based on his own assumption to protect the accused, and the question of further investigation does not arise, Snehamayi Krishna filed the protest petition against the closure report. He contended that the IO’s conduct right from inception was to exonerate the accused.
The final report mentioned illegalities in allotting 1,055 sites between 2016 and 2023 by MUDA causing an economic loss to the state’s exchequer. The IO also concluded that the MUDA commissioner was guilty and when this is the case, the question of exonerating the accused does not arise, he argued. The IO was never available for him to provide information over the offence, except summoning for conducting mahazar, he alleged.
ED too has filed a protest petition claiming that it has a locus standi to contest the closure report. But the Lokayukta police strongly opposed it.
The special public prosecutor for the Lokayukta contended that the court cannot permit ED authorities to enter into the shoes of the complainant. The Lokayukta will also not produce any documents till the locus standi of ED is decided as only the complainant can contest the B report, he added.
ED’s Special Public Prosecutor Madhukar Deshpande contended that the central agency has conducted substantial investigation by collecting mammoth materials after registering a predicate offence. The closure report leaves the entire process in vain. When a loss is caused to the government exchequer and it affects the economic system of the country, it cannot be brushed aside, he argued.