Mallikarjun Kharge, Priyank Kharge trust case: Karnataka HC allows complaint to proceed

The High Court of Karnataka has remitted the matter back to the special court the private complaint against Siddhartha Vihar Trust, in which AICC president Mallikarjun Kharge, his son and Karnataka Home Minister Priyank Kharge and others are the trustees.

The complaint alleged serious irregularities in the allotment of the civic amenity site to the trust by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).

Justice M Nagaprasanna passed this order while partly allowing the petition filed by Vijayaraghava Marathe, president of Lanchamukta Karnataka Vedike, who had filed a private complaint before the special court for cases involving elected representatives.

The complaint alleged that the trust claimed that it is meant for upliftment of Scheduled Castes to claim a civic amenity site measuring around 2 acres at BTM layout. According to the complaint, the trust was constituted as a public charitable trust for the benefit of all communities, irrespective of caste, creed or religion.

50% concession

However, it projected itself to be an institution exclusively for the benefit of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, only to secure concessions and thus it secured a concession of 50% in the lease amount payable to the BDA for the CA site.

The petitioner challenged the special court order directing enquiry into his allegations under BNSS section 223, which is taking cognizance upon a complaint and examination of the complainant and witnesses.

The trial court had noted that the complainant had failed to submit a verifying affidavit, in support of the allegations made in the private complaint, a requirement in terms of Apex Court decision in the Priyanka Srivastava case.

Justice Nagaprasanna said that BNS section 175(3) enables the trial court to set the investigation into motion where the allegations demand collection of material which the complainant cannot reasonably be expected to produce.

Insofar as the affidavit, the high court said that it was curable defect.

“The concerned court shall afford an opportunity to the complainant to cure the defect in the affidavit and thereafter proceed with the complaint strictly in accordance with the procedure obtaining under Section 175 of the BNSS, including compliance with the safeguards engrafted therein, wherever applicable,” the court said.