<p>The Karnataka High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against IPS officer Ajay Hilori in CBI’s I Monetary Advisory (IMA) case.</p>.<p>“Petitioner would become entitled to all consequential benefits, be it benefits of conditions of service, service benefits or any other incidental benefits that would flow from such quashment,” Justice M Nagaprasanna said in his order.</p>.<p>Ajay Hilori had taken charge as DCP (East) Bengaluru on January 1, 2017 and on the directions issued by the Commissioner of Police, he submitted an inquiry report on the IMA group.</p>.<p>After the case was transferred to CBI, an FIR was registered in February 2020 naming the petitioner as an accused.</p>.<p>It was alleged that the officer did not take any action and sat on the report for four months and also demanded and accepted a bribe.</p>.<p>The petitioner challenged the entire proceedings, including the prosecution sanction and cognizance taken by the trial court on the supplementary chargesheet filed by the CBI.</p>.<p>The petitioner’s contention was that a departmental inquiry, initiated on the same set of facts and on the same allegations, had exonerated him of the offences of demand and acceptance of any bribe concerning IMA deposits.</p>.<p>He contended that all the witnesses who are cited in the supplemental charge sheet to be tried against him have all tendered evidence in the departmental inquiry, which culminated in non-imposition of any penalty. It was submitted that the entire departmental inquiry proceeding against him was closed by issuing a warning.</p>.<p>The court said that according to the departmental inquiry officer’s findings, the officer was only negligent and negligence is only in forwarding the report without looking into the report.</p>
<p>The Karnataka High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against IPS officer Ajay Hilori in CBI’s I Monetary Advisory (IMA) case.</p>.<p>“Petitioner would become entitled to all consequential benefits, be it benefits of conditions of service, service benefits or any other incidental benefits that would flow from such quashment,” Justice M Nagaprasanna said in his order.</p>.<p>Ajay Hilori had taken charge as DCP (East) Bengaluru on January 1, 2017 and on the directions issued by the Commissioner of Police, he submitted an inquiry report on the IMA group.</p>.<p>After the case was transferred to CBI, an FIR was registered in February 2020 naming the petitioner as an accused.</p>.<p>It was alleged that the officer did not take any action and sat on the report for four months and also demanded and accepted a bribe.</p>.<p>The petitioner challenged the entire proceedings, including the prosecution sanction and cognizance taken by the trial court on the supplementary chargesheet filed by the CBI.</p>.<p>The petitioner’s contention was that a departmental inquiry, initiated on the same set of facts and on the same allegations, had exonerated him of the offences of demand and acceptance of any bribe concerning IMA deposits.</p>.<p>He contended that all the witnesses who are cited in the supplemental charge sheet to be tried against him have all tendered evidence in the departmental inquiry, which culminated in non-imposition of any penalty. It was submitted that the entire departmental inquiry proceeding against him was closed by issuing a warning.</p>.<p>The court said that according to the departmental inquiry officer’s findings, the officer was only negligent and negligence is only in forwarding the report without looking into the report.</p>