The Karnataka high court on Tuesday gave green signal to withdraw the complaint against state home minister R Ashoka of his involvement in illegal acquisition of land after the complainant M Manjunath moved a memo before the high court to withdraw the complaint pending in the files of the 23rd additional civil and sessions court.
It may be recalled that the minister had filed an application in the high court seeking the quashing of the sessions court order directing the Lokayukta police to probe the illegal acquisition of land, causing a loss of Rs26 crore to the state exchequer.
The high court on April 11 reserved for judgment and extended the interim stay on the Lokayukta probe until the pronouncement of the judgment.
Arguing on behalf of Ashoka, senior counsel BV Acharya, in the earlier hearing, had argued that the lower court cannot take the cognisance of the offences mentioned in a private complaint, since no sanction of prosecution has been granted by a competent authority against a public servant.
The former district judge Venkat Reddy and counsel for the complaint Manjunath had earlier argued the cognisance was taken by the lower court to deal with the case.
“The case is in pre-summons stage. There is no need for sanction from the governor during the beginning of the case itself. Nowhere in the complaint have we called Ashoka an accused and there is no crime registered against him. It is premature to say that a particular offence has been created under a particular section. Only after an enquiry, a particular offence can be brought under a particular section,” he said.
Manjunath moved a memo before the high court to withdraw the complaint pending in the files of the 23rd additional civil and sessions court.
Justice KN Keshavanarayana on Tuesday allowed the memo and has said that the complaint can be withdrawn.
Senior counsel and former advocate general Acharya said, “The high court has 100% jurisdiction to stay the proceedings of the lower court.”
“Since the complaint has been withdrawn in the high court, the lower court cannot do anything about it,” they added.
