Karnataka HC Stays Probe Against ED Officers Accused Of Coercing Witness To Name CM Siddaramaiah In Valmiki Corporation Case

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasann by way of interim relief stayed the investigation against petitioners Murali Kannan and one Mittal who are Deputy and Assistant Director of ED.

The case is registered under sections 3(5) (common intention), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), and 352 (intentional insult) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) on the complaint filed by one Kalesh.

During the hearing the bench orally observed “When officers perform duty if you go on registering FIR against them....nobody will perform their duty.”

Taking note that the ED had filed an ECIR and pursuant to that it had summoned the witness for recording his statement and subsequently a search and seizure was carried out in the corporations office.

The Court said, “If the interrogation had happened without the filing of ECIR all submission made by AG would have merited consideration. Interrogation leads to a search being conducted in the office of the corporation.A crime is registered, ECIR is registered and ED officers in discharge of their official duties, summon the complainant and investigate the matter and record statements. All this cannot but be said to be in discharge of official duties.”

It added “If this crime is permitted to be continued. It would become an abuse of process of law, albeit prima facie. Therefore, in the peculiar circumstances, I deem it appropriate to stay further proceedings against these two officers.”

Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty appearing for the state government opposed the plea for stay of investigation and said permission from the Magistrate was taken for registration of the FIR.

Referring to the complaint it was argued that the petitioners told the complainant to name Chief Minister in the case. The complaint discloses criminal intimidation. It was said, “Be it CBI, ED or anyone if an officer transgresses law he needs to be punished. Investigation officer cannot intimidate a witness.”

AG added that none of the officers who manage law and order can take law in their hands. It was also claimed that the first petitioner has been accused earlier of taking Rs 5 lakh for de-freezing an account due to his conduct this was not a case for stay of investigation.

Further it was claimed that investigation by the state police is nearing completion and then CBI registered a case as Union Bank of India was involved.

It was stated that thereafter the ED has filed an ECIR and a former minister has been arrested in the case. Mentioning that, Attorney General R Venkataramani had appeared in the case filed by the Bank seeking direction totransfer investigation carried out by state police to the CBI.

Shetty said, “The whole modus is to implicate some persons in state and arrest them and de-stabilize the system here.”

However, the Additional Solicitor General Arvind Kamath refuted the claim saying the allegation is not against the petitioner but some other officer of the agency. He submitted that, “The allegation of making a larger plan, if that be so he would have challenged registration of ECR, this is a malafide way of targeting officers.”

The court also disagreed and said "This is a novel idea. These ideas of flimsy style will not be allowed here."