Karnataka High Court
Ramesh Babu Halu vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 August, 2020
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200769/2016
Between:
Ramesh Babu Halu
S/o Kashappa Halu,
Age about 48 years,
Occ. Tahasildar, Shahapur,
R/o Shahapur, District Yadgiri.
... Petitioner
(By Sri Gururaj Rao Kakkeri &
Sri Ganesh Naik, Advocates)
And:
The State of Karnataka,
Through Shahapur Police Station,
Shahapur, District Yadgiri.
... Respondent
(By Sri Sharanabasappa M.Patil, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Code of Criminal Procedure praying to allow the petition and
be pleased to quash the entire proceedings Crime
No.129/2016 on the file of the Civil Judge and Judicial
Magistrate at Shahapur.
2
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
(Through Virtual Court) This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.129/2016 for the offences under Sections 420, 463, 468, 471, 465, 166 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 192-B of Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 2007 (KLR Act) registered by the Shahapur Police Station, Yadgiri Sub-Division pending on the file of Civil Jude and JMFC (Jr.Dn.) Court, Shahapur.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows ;- The Assistant Commissioner, Yadgiri has lodged a complaint on 16.05.2016 as per the instruction given by the Regional Commissioner, Kalaburagi Division, Kalaburagi before the Police Inspector, Shahapur Police Station, Shahapur by alleging that when the petitoner 3 was working as Tahasildar (Grade-II) at Shahapur, Taluk Shahapur that he had usurped his official power and had mutated the land bearing Sy.No.74/3 measuring 08 acre 35 guntas to some other names unauthorizedly by passing orders dated 12.03.2013 and 30.04.2015, and also allegation that in revenue mutation proceedings without issuing notice to the concerned parties and even when the said dispute is pending before the Civil Court, without taking note of this fact unilaterally has taken a decision by passing order on 12.03.2013 but later it was corrected the year of the order as '12.03.2015', even though the petitioner has assumed the charge as Tahasildar of Shahapuar on 23.07.2014. Therefore, complaint is lodged before the police and accordingly the Shahapur Police Station registered Crime No.129/2016 for the offences under Sections 420, 463, 468, 471, 465, 166 of IPC and Section 192-B of KLR Act against the petitioner. 4
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had not committed any offences as alleged and the entire complaint filed by the Assistant Commissioner is false one. Further submitted that when the petiioner was working at Shahapur in his official course while he was discharging his duties has passed order of mutation by wrongly mentioning the date as '12.03.2013' but later on correction order is passed by correcting the year of the order as '12.03.2015' and only by this mistake committed by typographical error, such false complaint is lodged.
5. Further submitted that the allegation as the order dated 12.03.2013 passed by the petitioner is not correct. The petitioner had assumed the charge as Tahasildar, Shahapur on 23.07.2014 but the date of 5 order is mentioned as 12.03.3013. It is a typographical error later on correction order is passed by correting the year of the order as '12.03.2015'. Therefore, only such typographical mistake is crept while mentioning the year of the order such false complaint is filed on the pretext of some other persons.
6. Further submitted that the applicants who have filed application for mutating their names was objected by the opponents in the said proceedings and accordingly the predecessor in office of the petitioner had conducted enquiry and before passing the order who was transferred then the petitioner had assumed the charge as Tahasildar, Shahapur on 23.07.2014 and later he has passed the order on 12.03.2015 by wrongly mentioning the order of the year as '2013'. Therefore, when the petitioner had discharged his duties in his official capacity by passing quasi judicial orders that cannot be termed that the petitioner had committed the 6 offences as alleged in the complaint. Therefore, prayed for quashing of the order.
7. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner had assumed charge as Tahasildar, Shahapur on 23.07.2014 but has passed on 12.03.2013. Therefore noticing this fact the Assistant Commissioner, Yadgiri has lodged complaint. Therefore, there are prima facie averments to go on with the trial for the alleged offences. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
8. Upon these rival contentions taken by both sides, this court had summoned the records from the Office of Tahasidlar, Shahapur and also from the Station House Officer of Shahapur Police Station and now today Sri Jagannath Reddy, Tahasildar (presently working) and Sri Chandrakanth, PSI, Shahapur are present before this court along with their respective records. Since this court had granted stay upon the 7 petition for further proceedings. Therefore, there is no much record found from the police. But I have perused the revenue records pertaining to the present proceedings resulting in mutation proceedings as passed by the petitioner in order to ascertain whether to find out prima facie case whether the petitioner had committed the alleged offences as per the complaint averments.
9. Upon perusing the records from the Tahasildar, Shahapur, now presently before the court brought by the Tahasidlar, (presently working), Shahapuar Taluk pertaining to the mutation proceedings bearing No. dated 12.03.2013. It is revealed that three persons namely Sri Revansiddappa S/o Hanmantharaya, Sri Mallappa S/o Hanamantharaya and Smt.Sharanamma W/o Girimallappa, of Chandapur Village, Shahapur Taluk have filed application for mutation of their names in 8 respect of the land involved into the case and along with the application, these persons have filed some record of rights, affidavits, sketch and it has been objected by objector one Sri Revanasiddappa S/o Ramswamy, resident of Bhovi Kadamgera, Shahapur Taluk. Thereafter, the Village Accountant considering the objection filed for mutating the names of the applicants had referred the matter to the Tahasildar, for taking appropriate decision. Therefore, the then Tahasildar, Shahapur has initiated proceedings in No. had conducted enquiry by fixing the dates as 18.06.2013, 02.07.2013, 18.07.2013, 28.08.2013, 03.09.2013, 17.09.2013 and 01.10.2013.
10. It is submitted by the learned High Court Government Pleader that after 01.10.2013 the then Tahasildar had transferred and in the meantime on 23.07.2014 the petitioner had taken the charge as Tahasildar at Shahapur. From the records it is borne 9 out that on 11.03.2015 the petitioner had taken up the case and posted the matter for orders and accordingly has passed order on 12.03.2015 but in the order the year of the order is typed as '12.03.2013'.
11. It is the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while passing the order on 12.03.2015 there is a typographical error was crept in the order instead of mentioning the year '2015' by typing it as '12.03.2013' but later on the petitioner had got rectified it as '12.03.2015' and had passed separate rectification order of mutation in favour of the above stated three applicants. Therefore, being aggrieved by this mutation order passed by the petitioner, perhaps the objectors in the said proceedings might have filed petition before the Regional Commissioner, Kalaburagi Division, Kalaburagi and in turn the said Regional Commissioner, had instructed the Assistant Commissioner, Yadgiri to lodge complaint. Therefore the genesis of the crime is as stated against the petitioner. 10 Upon considering the records as produced by the Tahasildar, Shahapur the only procedural irregularity is made by the petitioner after assuming charge as Tahasildar, Shahapur on 23.07.2014 that taking up the present case on 11.03.2015 and on the very same day concluded the proceedings and posted the matter for orders and accordingly passed the order. Just because this procedural irregularities committed without giving fresh notice to the applicants as well as the objectors this cannot be termed as the petitioner had committed the offences triable by the criminal courts. It is just procedural irregularities committed by the petitioner without issuing notice to the applicants and objectors and passed the order at the most it can be termed as may be without hearing the parties might have passed the order but it cannot be fastened criminal liability on the petitioner.
12. Furthermore the said order of the petitioner passed while he was discharging his duties as 11 Tahasildar, Shahapur was challenged before the Assistant Commissioner, Yadgiri by preferring appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the Assistant Commissioner, Yadgiri has set aside the order passed by the Tahasildar. Therefore, the entire records transpires the fact that just because some procedural irregularities while making mutation proceedings happened in the present case and which is typographical mistake crept in mentioning the year as '2013' instead of '2015' and is corrected as '2015' by such mistake led to filing of criminal complaint against the petitioner. Except these facts emerged in the present case the learned High Court Government Pleader has not at all produced any other documents prima facie to show that the petitioner has committed the offence of cheating, criminal breach of trust, fabrication of documents, cheating etc., what is alleged in the complaint. Substantially from perusing the complaint as given by the Assistant Commissioner, Yadgiri and also 12 upon perusing the records herein there are no prima facie case is revealed so as to proceed with the petitioner making him liable for fastening offences as alleged in the present case. Therefore, without there being any prima facie case is made out to attract the offences against the petitioner making him to face the trial of the charges as levelled against him by way of lodging complaint before the police by the Assistant Commissioner and just procedural irregularities committed and by just typographical error is crept by mentioning the year of the order that cannot be made ground for fastening the criminal liability on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, the learned High Court Government Pleader is unable to convince the court how this passing of the order for mutation in favour of the applicants which is quasi judicial in nature may be either of the parties may be aggrieved by the said order but how this is fastening criminal liability on the petitioner is not convinced to this court. Therefore, for 13 the reasons stated above, when the order passed by the Tahasildar, is found to be in discharging his duty in his official capacity and just because some procedural irregularities committed but that cannot be made him criminally liable to face offence before the court. Therefore, the State failed to make out prima facie case against the petitioner. Therefore, when this being the fact there is no prima facie case at all to initiate criminal proceeding against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of the court. Therefore, the entire proceedings culminating into Crime No.129/2016 for the offences under Sections 420, 463, 468, 471, 465, 166 of IPC and Section 192-B of KLR Act registered by the Shahapur Police Station, Yadgiri Sub-Division is liable to be quashed and accordingly the said criminal proceedings are quashed by allowing the present petition. Hence, I proceed to pass the ORDER The petition is hereby allowed.
14The entire proceedings in Crime No.129/2016 for the offences under Sections 420, 463, 468, 471, 465, 166 of Indian Penal Code and Section 192-B of Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 2007 registered by the Shahapur Police Station, Yadgiri Sub- Division pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC (Jr.Dn.) Court, Shahapur is hereby quashed.
The original records shall be returned to the Tahasidlar, Shahapur.
Sd/-
JUDGE sn