Criminal Petition No. 5676 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11270 CRL.P No. 5676 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5676 OF 2024 BETWEEN: J.M. NATARAJ, S/O MANJE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SATHYAMANGALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TQ AND DT - 573 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATH B.R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
Legal Reasoning
ERSTWHILE ACB POLICE, HASSAN, NOW LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, HASSAN REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. NINGARAJE GOWDA, S/O LATE KRISHNE GOWDA, AGED 61 YEARS, BHOOMI PRIYA NILAYA, OPP. TO VIVEKANANDA STATUE, VIVEKANAGARA LAYOUT, HASSAN - 573 201.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. LETHIF B, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. PRAKASH M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11270 CRL.P No. 5676 of 2024 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.6/2022 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 13(1)(b) AND 13(2) OF PREVENTION CORRUPTION ACT 1988 AND U/S.420 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC OF ERSTWHILE ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, HASSAN NOW KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, HASSAN AND ALSO CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLIANT IN PCR NO.1/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HASSAN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner/accused No.1, who is currently being prosecuted for offences under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as well as under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is before this Court seeking relief. 2. Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), alleging that accused No.3 was granted land measuring 55 x 45 feet. However, it is contended that accused No.3 actually obtained a katha (land document) for land measuring 58 x 45 feet and subsequently commenced construction by encroaching three feet into a drainage area. The allegation against petitioner/accused No.1 is that when respondent No.2 submitted a representation seeking the cancellation of the katha on the grounds that it encroached upon - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11270 CRL.P No. 5676 of 2024 government property the petitioner/accused No.1, allegedly in return for a bribe, failed to act on that representation. Following these events, the learned special court referred the complaint to the Lokayukta police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The respondent Lokayukta subsequently registered an FIR for the offences, which prompted the petitioner/accused to approach this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, as a Panchayat Development Officer, the petitioner/accused No.1 is not specifically entrusted with the responsibility to act on the representation submitted by respondent No.2. Moreover, in the absence of any specific, overt act clearly demonstrating that the petitioner failed to act on the representation in exchange for a bribe from accused No.3, the registration of the FIR lacks the essential elements necessary to constitute the alleged offences. In the petitioner’s view, the complaint is too vague to justify the criminal proceedings. 4. In response, the learned counsel for both the respondent Lokayukta and respondent No.2 argue that the allegations made in the private complaint do, in fact, disclose the commission of the offences attributed to the petitioner/accused No.1. They maintain that the factual allegations warrant investigation at this stage, and therefore, the registration of the FIR is justified and should not be interfered with. 5. The arguments presented by the counsels for both parties have been duly considered by this Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11270 CRL.P No. 5676 of 2024 6. Chapter 5 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, which deals with the staffing of the Gram Panchayat, includes Section 111 that states as follows: “111. Panchayat Development Officer and other Officers (1) Every Gram Panchayat shall have a full-time Panchayat Development Officer and Secretary, who shall be government employees, along with such other officials as appointed by the Government. Their salaries the Gram and allowances shall be drawn Panchayat fund once it has been credited by the Government. from (2) The Panchayat Development Officer shall perform all duties and exercise all powers conferred upon him by this Act or any rules or bye-laws made thereunder. The the Secretary and Panchayat Development Officer in discharging his duties. the other officials shall assist (3) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions under sub-section (2), the Panchayat Development Officer shall perform the following functions, namely: (a) Submit the monthly accounts of the Gram Panchayat to the Gram Panchayat before the tenth day of the succeeding month; (b) Furnish returns, statements of accounts, and any other information as required by the Government or the auditor; (c) Inspect or cause to be inspected the accounts of institutions under the control of the Gram Panchayat; (d) Maintain records of standing committees, other committees, Sabha, and the Ward Sabha; the Gram Panchayat, its the Gram - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11270 CRL.P No. 5676 of 2024 (e) Coordinate the preparation of the annual plan and five-year plan so that the approved plan is submitted to the District Planning Committee in a timely manner; (f) Disburse the Gram Panchayat fund and plan fund to the concerned officers and provide a utilization certificate in the prescribed manner; and (g) Execute all lawful decisions and resolutions adopted by the Gram Panchayat under this Act and sign all orders issued by the Gram Panchayat.” 7. The sole allegation against the petitioner/accused No.1, who serves as a Panchayat Development Officer, is the general claim that he failed to act on respondent No.2’s representation regarding the cancellation of the katha after allegedly taking a bribe. However, there is no specific evidence or description of an overt act that details how and in what manner the petitioner did not act on the representation. The Petitioner lacked authority to consider the representation or was under an obligation to place the representation before the Grama Panchayat for consideration . Mere inaction to act on the representation will not constitute an offence alleged , in the absence of any evidence that such inaction was for extraneous consideration . 8. Furthermore, it is noted that the katha was registered as far back as 1996, the representation was submitted in 2015, and the private complaint was only filed in 2022—without complying with the mandatory procedural requirement of Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. In light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka (reported in 2022 SCC - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11270 CRL.P No. 5676 of 2024 Online SC 200), the order of the learned special court referring the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. is vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. Under these circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 8. Accordingly, I pass the following:
Decision
ORDER i. The criminal petition is allowed. ii. The FIR in Crime No.6/2022 registered by respondent No.1-ACB Police, Hassan insofar it relates to the petitioners/accused No.1 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 112 CT: BHK