ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 14.06.2019 passed in Spl.C.C.No.584/2019 on the file of XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act (for short ‘PC Act’) at Bengaluru City vide Annexure-A; issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire criminal proceedings, charge sheet initiated against the petitioner in Spl.C.C.No.584/2019 filed for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 120B of the IPC and Section 12 of the PC Act vide AnnexureA1 and issue such other reliefs as deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that this petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.2 on the ground that the father of the petitioner belongs to the Indian Administrative Service and he was posted as a Commissioner and Director of Mines and Geology on 12.9.2005. This petitioner as the son of the Government Servant had accepted an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-from accused No.2 on behalf of his father in order to make the official favour to accused No.1 by way of granting permission for shifting the mines to the tune of 1,17,800 metric tonns of iron ore without the statutory clearance by the Central Government which is mandatory to operate the mining area. Hence, the above offences are invoked. 3. The main contention of the petitioner is that he has been falsely arraigned as accused for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 120B of IPC and Section 12 of the PC Act, which amounts to an abuse of process of Court. Learned Special Judge also committed an error in taking the cognizance in the absence of charge sheet against the public servant since the same is without jurisdiction and without the authority of law. Learned Special Judge also committed an error in taking the cognizance in the absence of charge sheet against the public servant since the same is without jurisdiction and without the authority of law. Unless the Government grants sanction against accused No.3, who is the father of the petitioner herein and when the charge sheet is not filed against accused No.3, learned Special Judge has failed to consider the allegation made against the petitioner that the petitioner has abated the commission of offences and has erroneously invoked Section 120B of IPC on the ground of criminal conspiracy and without obtaining the sanction under Section 19 of PC Act for filing the charge sheet against the public servant, learned Special Judge cannot issue the summons in a mechanical manner without due application of mind and also failed to consider the material available on record. 4. Learned Judge failed to consider the allegation against the petitioner that he has received a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-from the Director of M/s 21st Century Wire Rods Limited, which is neither the lessee nor in any manner connected with the mining lease to prosecute the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 120B of IPC and Section 12 of PC Act. The private transaction between the petitioner and Mr. Gaurav Goel is sought to be made use of to prosecute the petitioner, which on the face of it is illegal and without the authority of law. Learned Special Judge failed to consider the statement of Mr. Gaurav Goel, who has categorically stated that an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-was paid as an advance to the petitioner and therefore, in their books of accounts, income tax returns, it has clearly been reflected as an advance for a private transaction. It is also contended that the father of the petitioner has not even passed any order in favour of M/s. Jantakal Enterprises to allege the criminal conspiracy against the petitioner. The offence invoked against the petitioner under the PC Act does not attract the ingredients of any such offences. The petitioner is a private citizen and carrying on the business in Music Industry and in connection with his Music Industry, the amount has been collected. Hence, learned Special Judge has committed an error in taking the cognizance against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that SIT has no jurisdiction to register and investigate the matter. Hence, learned Special Judge has committed an error in taking the cognizance against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that SIT has no jurisdiction to register and investigate the matter. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-was received in the year 2007 in connection with his music work. Learned counsel would further submit that the transportation of iron ore is no way connected to the said transaction. Learned counsel would further vehemently contend that no sanction is obtained to file the charge sheet against the father of the petitioner and in the absence of filing the charge sheet against the father of the petitioner and other accused, there cannot be any prosecution against this petitioner. 6. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that no material has been collected to prove the case against this petitioner. The learned Special Judge failed to take note of the fact that there are no materials against the petitioner herein and committed an error in taking the cognizance against this petitioner in the absence of such materials. 7. Learned counsel also would submit that the second FIR is not permissible under the law. The first FIR was registered in Crime No.168/2009 on 24.08.2009 and the second FIR is registered by SIT. It is also contended that the Inspector, who registered the case is not a police station. The Supreme Court also has not given any permission to register the case. Thus, the learned Special Judge has committed an error in taking the cognizance. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent in his arguments vehemently contend that though the case was earlier registered in Crime No.168/2009, the same was transferred to the SIT and on transferring the case, FIR was registered and hence, the same cannot be a second FIR. The statement of first accused is very clear that the amount was transferred to the account of this petitioner. Learned counsel in reply to the arguments canvassed would submit that the SIT is not a police station. In so far as Section 2(s) of IPC is concerned, the matter has already been covered by the Apex Court and it has been held that SIT also constitutes a police station. Hence, the said contention cannot be accepted. 9. Learned counsel in reply to the arguments canvassed would submit that the SIT is not a police station. In so far as Section 2(s) of IPC is concerned, the matter has already been covered by the Apex Court and it has been held that SIT also constitutes a police station. Hence, the said contention cannot be accepted. 9. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that the Bank Manager has also been examined to show the fact that the amount has been transferred to the account of this petitioner twice in a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-each. With regard to the jurisdiction is concerned, learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court page No.180, wherein the investigation was permitted in respect of illegalities in M/s Jantakal Enterprises i.e., Export of iron ore from Belekeri Port and iron ore lumps exported from Murmagao port to Pakistan Steels Karachi, Pakistan by M/s. 21st Century Wire Rods Limited. When such a specific order has been made based on the report submitted by the Lokayuktha dated 27.07.2011 for further investigation, the petitioner cannot find fault with the investigation contending that there is no jurisdiction. 10. In reply to the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner would submits that Section 190 of Cr.P.C. has not been complied with and learned Special Judge has not applied his mind while taking the cognizance. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel appearing for the respondent and also on perusal of the material available on record, the main contention of the prosecution is that this petitioner has indulged in collecting the amount of Rs.20,00,000/-i.e., Rs.10,00,000/-each twice. Having perused the material on record, the petitioner also not disputes the fact of receipt of the amount of Rs.20,00,000/-on different dates with two different cheques. The contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the amount has been received in connection with music work and the first accused is also not disputing the transfer of the amount in favour of this petitioner. But it is the contention of the petitioner that the said transaction is in respect of other private transaction. The contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the amount has been received in connection with music work and the first accused is also not disputing the transfer of the amount in favour of this petitioner. But it is the contention of the petitioner that the said transaction is in respect of other private transaction. The fact as to whether the said amount has been received in respect of other transaction or in connection with music work, is the aspect which has to be considered during the course of the trial. The Court prima facie finds that the amount of Rs.20,00,000/-was transferred in favour of the petitioner herein by accused No.1. 12. The other contention of the petitioner that no sanction has been obtained in order to file the charge sheet against the father of the petitioner who has been arraigned as accused No.3 cannot be a ground by itself, to quash the proceedings against this petitioner. Having considered the allegation against this petitioner for the offences invoked under Sections 109, 120B of IPC and Section 12 of PC Act, the abatement and conspiracy has to be proved only by examining the circumstantial witnesses and the Court cannot expect the direct evidence in a case of conspiracy and abatement and the conspiracy would take place in secrecy. But in the case on hand, the amount has been transferred to the account of the petitioner herein from the account of the first accused. The fact that the shifting of iron ore to the extent of 1,17,800 metric tons has been transferred is also not in dispute. The case of the prosecution is also that without the statutory clearance from the Central Government, permission was accorded to transport the same. When such being the case, the factual aspects of the disputed question and defences which have been raised in the ground of this petition cannot be decided in a proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and it requires full fledged trial. 13. The other contention of the petitioner that no material is available against the petitioner also cannot be accepted for the reason that there is a direct evidence with regard to transfer of money to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- i.e., Rs.10,00,000/- each through cheques. The other contention that the second FIR is registered also cannot be accepted. 13. The other contention of the petitioner that no material is available against the petitioner also cannot be accepted for the reason that there is a direct evidence with regard to transfer of money to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- i.e., Rs.10,00,000/- each through cheques. The other contention that the second FIR is registered also cannot be accepted. It is an admitted fact that at the first instance, the case was registered in Crime No.168/2009 and thereafter, SIT took over the further investigation. The order with regard to handing over the investigation to the SIT is also placed before the Court. 14. No doubt, the respondent-prosecution has filed its detailed objections statement reiterating the material collected by the prosecution in order to proceed against the petitioner. The petitioner has also filed detailed rejoinder to the statement of the objections, wherein the petitioner reiterated the grounds urged in the petition with regard to the jurisdiction as well as filing of the charge sheet. 15. Having perused the grounds urged in the petition, objections statement and rejoinder, all the facts has to be decided in a trial and defence cannot be appreciated in the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that accused No.1 made the statement with regard to the transfer of money in favour of accused No.2 contending that the same is in respect of the private transaction. When the prosecution relies upon the material with regard to the transportation of mines and permitting the transportation of mines without the statutory clearance and so also the material with regard to the transfer of money to the account of this petitioner, who being the son of accused No.3, all the disputed questions have to be considered only after conducting the full fledged trial. Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. 16. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed.