HD Kumaraswamy Accuses CM Siddaramaiah of Illegally Approving 7 Mining Leases, Slams H.K. Patil’s ‘Diversionary Tactics’
BENGALURU:
A special court for trial of cases against legislators has dismissed a private complaint against JD(S) leader and former Karnataka chief minister H D Kumaraswamy.
In the complaint, it was alleged that in the affidavit filed along with the nomination papers during the Assembly elections in 2018, Kumaraswamy had furnished false information regarding his second wife Radhika Kumaraswamy, son Nikhil Kumaraswamy and daughter Shamika Kumaraswamy.
This was alleged to be offences under Section 181 (false statement under oath) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 125A (failing to furnish information or false information) of The Representation of People Act. While the complaint alleged that HDK had failed to provide details of these three persons, the allegation under Section 181 was about furnishing false information.
The Special Court judge Preeth J, therefore, held in her recent judgement that ”From the very complaint averments, it goes to show that the accused has not given any false statement in his affidavit. According to the complainant itself, the accused has not disclosed their particulars. Giving false statements and not disclosing the information stand on different footings. As such, no offence under Section 181 of IPC is said to have been committed by the accused.” The court also noted that to proceed with the case under Section 181, the complaint in writing should be given by a public servant concerned or a public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.
As for Section 125A of the RP Act, the Court noted that there is no proof about Radhika Kumaraswamy being the wife of Kumaraswamy. There is no document or evidence to show that Radhika Kumaraswamy is also the wife of the accused or the second wife of the accused as alleged by the complainant, the court noted.
Just because, the complainant is saying that she is the second wife that too without any single piece of document, this court even at this stage cannot register any criminal case against the accused for not having shown the name of Radhika Kumaraswamy as his second wife, the judgement said.
The court also said that ”Furthermore during the lifetime of the first wife, there cannot be any concept of a second wife under the prevailing law.” As for the allegation about information regarding Kumaraswamy’s children, the court said that it was not required under the rules.
”Next, coming to concealing information about his children. Once again, the affidavit submitted by the accused under Form No.26 is perused. Admittedly, there is no column shown to mention about the information of the children of the candidate, except the spouse and her properties and such other information. The candidate is required to give particulars which are sought for by the candidate in Form No.26 which is a format,” the Court noted.
Dismissing the private complaint, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ordered that the complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., for the alleged offence under Section 181 of IPC and Section 125A of RP Act, is dismissed. PTI
About the Author
