Special Investigation Team Of CID Not Vitiated Merely Because All Members Not From CID: Karnataka HC While Rejecting BJP MLA Munirathna's Plea
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by BJP MLA Munirathna, seeking to quash a case registered against him for allegedly demanding money from a contractor who had been entrusted under the Solid Waste Management Tender of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The FIR is lodged under Sections 504, 506, 323, 385, 420 and 37 of the Indian Penal Code and is...
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by BJP MLA Munirathna, seeking to quash a case registered against him for allegedly demanding money from a contractor who had been entrusted under the Solid Waste Management Tender of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP).
The FIR is lodged under Sections 504, 506, 323, 385, 420 and 37 of the Indian Penal Code and is being investigated by the SIT. It is alleged that Munirathna had demanded money from the garbage collection contractor.
As the crimes against Munirathna had emerged from different informants for different offences, the State constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID).
Munirathna's counsel submitted that except for the head of the SIT, two other members did not belong to the CID. He argued that if the SIT was constituted of the CID, all the officers needed to be from the CID. He contended that the constitution of the SIT by the State was flawed and thus the investigation needs to be quashed.
Justice M Nagaprasanna however did not accept this contention and observed that merely because all the members of the SIT are not from CID, the constitution of the SIT would not get vitiated. The Court stated, "I decline to accept this submission, as SIT can be constituted to a crime of officers drawn from different Departments. Merely because the Government order refers to a SIT of the CID it does not mean that it gets vitiated on account of other teammates in the SIT being drawn from other sources. The Head of the investigation team is from CID is an admitted fact. The others would be to assist the head. Therefore, the submission that there is a flaw in the constitution of SIT, is itself a flawed submission and sans countenance."
Munirathna's counsel also contended that the complaint is a product of political conspiracy against him. It was averred that the events narrated in the complaint are about five years old and are deliberately registered in the year 2024 to wreak vengeance against the legislator. However, the prosecution opposed the plea submitting that the alleged harassment by Munirathna in demanding money continued from 2019 through 2024. Therefore, there is no delay in the case at hand.
The Court observed that the complaint detailed the allegations of demand starting from May 05, 2019 and every paragraph indicated the date and year of the alleged incidents. "It travels from 05-07-2019 and stops at 08-08-2024. This exactly forms the fulcrum of the lis. Therefore, it is not the case where the incident of 05-07-2019 alone is complained of on 13-09-2024...Thus, falls the first ground urged by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner," the Court observed.
Further the Court noted that three crimes were registered against Munirathna, including the offence of rape. The investigation was initially handed over to the CID and later the State Government thought it fit to constitute a SIT of the CID to investigate the crimes.
On the constitution of the SIT, the Court observed “It is an admitted fact that the head of the SIT is from CID. CID is a Department in the Criminal Investigation System of the State. There are two types of officers who man the CID – one directly recruited to the CID; they are called the detectives and only those detectives are permanent employees of the CID. All other officers are drawn from the general Police wing of the State by transfer, deputation or any other mode. It is in public domain that except those detectives, all other officers are from general Police. Therefore, the submission that the head of the SIT is from CID and others are not, apart from being factually incorrect, is a legally untenable statement.”
Accordingly, it dismissed the petition.
Appearance: Senior Advocate Ashok Haranahalli for Advocate Srinivas Rao for Petitioner.
Additional Advocate General Pradeep C S a/w Additional SPP B N Jagadeesha for Respondent.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 100
Case Title: Munirathna AND State Of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.1724 OF 2025
