E-Paper
HC quashes complaint against minister, others
The Karnataka high court dismissed a complaint against Minister K J George for allegedly manipulating smart meter tenders, ending the criminal proceedings.
The Karnataka high court on Tuesday set aside a private complaint that accused state energy minister K J George and senior officials of the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM) of allegedly manipulating the tender process for the supply and installation of smart meters. The order effectively ends the criminal proceedings initiated by three Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) legislators who had sought action against the minister and officials over alleged irregularities in the procurement process.
Justice MI Arun delivered the ruling while allowing a petition filed by George seeking to have the case dismissed. “Petitions are allowed. Consequently the proceedings pending before the trial court are quashed,” he was quoted by Bar and Bench.
A detailed order is awaited.
Similar petitions were also filed by former BESCOM managing director D Mahantesh Bilagi and technical director H J Ramesh. The court additionally closed the proceedings against Bilagi after noting that he had recently died in a road accident.
The complaint that triggered the litigation had been filed by BJP leaders C N Ashwath Narayan, S R Vishwanath and Dheeraj Muniraj. On July 23, an Additional City Civil and Sessions Court had directed the registration of a private complaint report (PCR) against George, Bilagi and Ramesh, acting on the allegations that the tender had been undervalued, pre-qualification requirements relaxed and procurement norms violated to benefit a pre-selected vendor. The same order sought a status report from the Lokayukta police on a complaint previously submitted to the anti-corruption agency.
The high court’s order overturned that directive and all related trial court proceedings. The petitioners had asked the high court to quash the private complaint dated July 17, 2025, which cited sections 314, 316 and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, including Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b). They had also challenged the trial court’s reliance on Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to call for a Lokayukta police report.
Senior advocate C V Nagesh, appearing for George and the BESCOM officials, argued that the accused were public servants and therefore protected under the Prevention of Corruption Act, particularly Section 17A, which restricts the initiation of proceedings without prior sanction. He said the trial court’s approach was flawed because it had sought a report from the police instead of the superior authority of the officials against whom allegations were made.
“The impugned order cannot be passed at all. A report from the officer superior in rank against whom the allegation is made is required to be called for. No report is called from my superior officer, he calls it from the police,” he argued. He added, “Here the trial court has passed an order directing Lokayukta police to submit a report which is not permissible.”
Representing the complainants, Senior advocate Lakshmy Iyengar argued that the trial court’s decision was within its authority and that Section 175(3) and Section 175(4) of the BNSS were not mutually exclusive. She said the court had sought a report on the complaint lodged before the Lokayukta and had acted within its powers.
The dispute began earlier this year when the three BJP legislators filed a complaint with the Lokayukta police alleging that senior BESCOM officials and the minister had conspired to influence the tender process. Afterward, the lawmakers filed the private complaint before the special court, leading to the contested July 23 order.
Following Tuesday’s ruling, George said the decision underscored that the proceedings lacked legal basis. “This judgment is a powerful affirmation of truth, and I am deeply grateful for the clarity the Court has provided,” George said. “For months, we have maintained that the allegations were unfounded. Today’s order strengthens my resolve to move forward with even greater transparency, and it gives fresh momentum to the reform work we are undertaking in the state’s energy sector.”
