Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has temporarily halted the investigation and proceedings against two Enforcement Directorate (ED) officers involved in the Valmiki Corporation scam investigation.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna granted the stay, stating, “Continuing with this case would result in a misuse of the law against officers who were performing their duties.”
The FIR was filed based on a complaint by Kallesh B., Additional Director of the Social Welfare Department, who had been summoned by the ED for questioning. Kallesh claimed that during the interrogation, he was coerced into implicating former Congress minister B. Nagendra and Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Aravind Kamat, representing the ED, argued that the officers were acting in their official capacity. He noted that Kallesh waited six days before filing the police complaint.
Justice Nagaprasanna remarked, “If every officer’s duties are scrutinised this way, it will discourage them from working. Innovative, film-inspired allegations will not be tolerated. This could jeopardize the safety of all investigating officers.”
When questioned by the Court, Advocate General Shashikiran Shetty countered by asking why the ED was conducting the investigation in this manner. The Court reiterated, “The issue here is the protection of investigating officers. Allowing this case to proceed would set a dangerous precedent.”
The investigation against the ED officers has been stayed, with the next hearing scheduled for August 21.Advocate Madhukar Deshpande, along with ASG Kamat, represented the ED, while Additional Special Public Prosecutor BN Jagadesh and AG Shetty appeared for the State.
The issue sparked significant political activity, with Congress leaders staging a protest near the Gandhi statue in front of Vidhansouda on July 23. They accused the ED officials of harassing Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar, and former Minister Nagendra, alleging misuse of central investigative agencies by the central government. The protestors raised slogans against the Centre, expressing their discontent over the alleged harassment.
The controversy also spilled into legislative discussions. The Congress sought a discussion on the issue in the House, but the ruling Congress faced opposition from BJP and JDS members who argued that such discussions would not benefit the public. This led to a heated exchange and an uproar in the assembly.
This high-profile case has drawn significant attention, highlighting tensions between state and central authorities and raising questions about the conduct and accountability of investigative agencies in high-stakes political and financial investigations.
Second case against ED
This is second case filed against ED officers by Karnataka police . The Bengaluru police on January 24 filed FIR against enforcement Directorate officers following a complaint by Y.B. Ashwathnarayana, director of the Kolar-Chikkaballapur District Co-operative Milk Producers Union (KOMUL).
The ED had launched an investigation into an alleged recruitment scam at KOMUL, which included accusations of money laundering. The FIR filed against ED Deputy Director Ajay Kumar Vaidya and Assistant Director Ajay Kumar Vaidya, by Wilson garden police.
Ashwathnarayana , alleging assault and criminal intimidation by ED officials on January 8 and 9, 2024. He claimed they threatened him and his family and coerced him into signing false confessions. The accusations against the ED officials included charges under IPC sections 323, 324, and 506.
The high court on February 4 issued stay order against the FIR filed against Ashwath Narayana. The ED officers argued that the complaint and FIR were fabricated to exert undue pressure on the investigating officers and disrupt the money laundering probe. They asserted that the proceedings under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) are judicial in nature, and Ashwathnarayana’s complaint was a baseless attempt to evade these proceedings. Furthermore, they claimed that the police filed the complaint without any preliminary enquiry, particularly given the allegations were against public servants performing their statutory duties.
