Karnataka High Court
Sri Venkatachalapathi vs State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 2477
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3355/2017
BETWEEN:
SRI VENKATACHALAPATHI,
S/O J.VENKATESHAIAH,
AGE 46 YEARS,
OCC : PRESIDENT,
SHARADHA VIKAS TRUST,
NO.450/1/14, 10TH MIAN, 27TH CROSS,
4TH BLOCK, LAKSHMI COMPLEX,
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 011.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT VIJETHA R.NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH LOKAYUKATA POLICE, KOLAR,
REP.BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(SRI.VENKATESH S.ARABATTI, SPL.P.P)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR,
CR.NO.3/2013 COMPLAINT, CHARGE SHEET AND THE
ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN (PCA)
CC.NO.13/2014 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL.DIST. &
S.J., KOLAR FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3(1)(C), 13(2) OF
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT R/W 465, 468, 471,
409, 420 R/W 120B OF IPC IN RESPECT OF THE
PETTIONER HEREIN.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2 in (PCA) CC.No.13/2014 for offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(c) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w Sections 465, 468, 471, 409, 420 r/w Section 120(B) of IPC, 1860. He is seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings initiated against him in the aforesaid criminal case, which is pending before the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar.
2. The matter is listed for admission. But with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner Smt.Vijetha R.Naik, who is appearing through video conferencing and the learned Special Public Prosecutor Sri.Venkatesh S.Arbatti appearing for Lokayuktha, the same is taken up for final disposal. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the material on record.
3
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the materials which are secured by the Investigation Officer during the course of investigation relating to the offences which are leveled against the petitioner in the aforesaid crime. Firstly, she contends that Sharada Vikas Trust is a renowned Trust which is established with the aim and object of imparting education to thousands of students in the State of Karnataka, which is referred for short as SVT. SVT entered into a memorandum of undertaking with KSOU on 16.6.2007 vide document No.4 to run various courses as listed in the Prospectus of SVT, which is produced as document No.10. One Venkatachalapathy, who is the president of SVT has successfully carried on the aim and object of the Trust by providing first class education to aspirant students. The second limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel is that the allegation relating to SVT is that it has appointed the Study Centers without obtaining sanction from KSOU. But this allegation made in the materials which are secured by the Investigation Officer is a baseless material. The KSOU vide letter dated 23.8.2012 approved 4 Glorious Institute of Management to run the Study Center on a provisional basis. To support the same, document No.11 is produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. She has also produced document Nos.12 and 13 for supporting the grounds urged in this petition seeking intervention and quashing of the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner, who is arraigned as accused. She further submits that no material is secured by the Investigation Officer during the course of investigation relating to registration of crime for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('PC Act' for short) and also certain offences under IPC. She submits that Section 420 of IPC mandates that the accused who tries to cheat should dishonestly induce another to deliver any property or other valuable security and in the charge sheet there is no specific allegation to constitute the aforesaid offence which is leveled against the petitioner. Even for the offences under PC Act, 1988, the ingredients do not attract in the case of the petitioner/accused as petitioner is not a public servant. Hence, on these grounds learned counsel seeks for 5 quashing of the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in Crime No.3/2013, whereby charge sheet was filed against the accused by the investigating agency in (PCA) CC.No.13/2014 for offences which are reflected in the FIR recorded by the Lokayuktha police and (PCA) CC.No.13/2014, which is pending trial against the petitioner before the Special Court.
4. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for Lokayuktha has countered the grounds urged in this petition by the learned counsel for the petitioner and so also the contentions raised by her. He pressed upon the averments made in the complaint and registration of FIR based on the material which are secured by the Investigation Officer in the course of investigation in order to lay the charge sheet, which prima facie indicates materials against the accused for commission of an offence by creating the documents and cheating the Government and also the students relating to training courses under the guise of SVT, as a renowned Trust. He submits that the accused is said to have committed an offence which is reflected in the charge sheet laid by the Investigation 6 Officer and misappropriate totally a sum of Rs.1,25,09,800/- which is the Government fund and that the accused has made unlawful gain of Rs.35,19,113/-. He submitted that it is alleged in the compliant and charge sheet that the petitioner/accused No.2 who is President of SVT along with the Taluk Social Welfare Officer, Bangarpet (accused No.1), Principal of Active Computer Education Society and Glorious Institute of Management, executive Officer of Taluk Panchayat, Bangarpet and other Government officials have conspired and misappropriated a huge sum allocated by the Karnataka State Open University for education of SC/ST students through distance education programs. Hence, on these grounds the learned Special Public Prosecutor seeks for dismissal of the petition as there are no justifiable grounds urged for intervention of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC and for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner which is pending trial in (PCA) CC.No.13/2014.
5. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the scope of Section 482 of Cr.PC. The said power should be 7 exercised sparingly and judiciously, with care and caution, in exceptional cases to prevent injustice and to do real and substantial justice and to avoid abuse of process of law. In this case in the complaint and charge sheet it is alleged that the petitioner vide letter dated 30.7.2012 and another letter dated 23.8.2012 had claimed that Active Computer Education Society and Glorious Institute of Managemnet are provisionally approved study centers. It is also alleged that the accused persons have misappropriated the funds allocated by the Karnataka State Open University for imparting education to SC/ST students through distance education prgramme i.e., Rs.1,25,09,800/- and that the petitioner has made wrongful gain of Rs.35,19,113/-.
6. However, after going through the entire material available on record it is noticed that the petitioner without having recourse to Section 239 and 227 of Cr.PC seeking discharge from the allegations made in the charge sheet has directly approached this Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings initiated against him. But in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.PC, this Court must be 8 very cautious and the same has to be exercised sparingly and judiciously in the matters relating to the charge sheet laid against the accused where the accused are said to have committed the offences based on the material collected by the Investigation Officer during investigation. Therefore, at this stage, there are no justifiable grounds to consider the relief sought in this petition seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings which are initiated after thorough investigation by the Investigation Officer. It is for the trial court to consider the same after appreciation of the material available on record and also the evidence which requires to be facilitated by the prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused. However, petitioner has liberty to file an application under Section 239 and 227 of Cr.PC seeking his discharge before the Special Court in (PCA) CC.No.13/2014 which is pending for trial.
7. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 482 of Cr.PC is hereby rejected. However, 9 liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make an application under the relevant provisions of Cr.PC i.e., Sections 239 and 227 of Cr.P.C., before the trial court seeking quashing of the proceedings/discharge from the proceedings. But a copy of the same shall be furnished to the Special Public Prosecutor in (PCA) CC.No.13/2014 to enable him to file his objections to the application if any. Thereafter, the trial court shall proceed in the matter and decide the application, if any filed, on merits in accordance with law.
It is made clear that any observation made in this petition shall not influence the trial Court in disposing of the application, if any, of the petitioner/accused No.2 has filed.
All the contentions of both the parties are kept open.
Sd/-
JUDGE nd