The Karnataka High Court has quashed a private complaint filed by members of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) against K J George, State Energy Minister, and officials of BESCOM, relating to alleged irregularities in the procurement and installation of smart electricity meters in the State. The complaint, filed on July 17, 2025, had accused them of offences under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, contending that the tender process was skewed to favour a particular private company.
The High Court, through a bench led by Justice M I Arun, allowed the petition filed by George and the BESCOM officials seeking to quash the complaint, thereby setting aside the proceedings pending before the trial court. The Court’s order effectively terminates the criminal case against the minister and others in this matter, at least at this stage.
In arguments before the Court, the defence had contended that the prosecution was not maintainable because the persons accused were public servants; therefore, prior sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act was mandatory before initiating criminal proceedings. It was also argued that the special court’s directive to the Lokayukta police to submit a report under Section 175(4) of the BNS was legally impermissible, because the report should have been called from a senior officer rather than the police.
The Court accepted these arguments. It found that the special court’s order, which had directed the Lokayukta police to file a report, lacked legal basis, and that the complaint did not satisfy the statutory requirements for prosecution of public servants. In view of these legal deficiencies, the High Court held that continuation of the proceedings was not justified, and allowed the petitions to quash the complaint and the order directing investigation.
With this judgment, the case alleging procurement irregularities in the smart‑meter tender process — including claims of manipulation of eligibility criteria, undervaluation of the contract and favouring a specific company — stands dismissed, at least insofar as the private complaint and the pending trial court proceedings are concerned.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.