Karnataka High Court
Prakash Kolare S/O Shivaraj vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 22 August, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6624
CRL.P No. 200045 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200045 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
PRAKASH KOLARE
S/O. SHIVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
OCCUPATION: GOVERNMENT SERVANT
WORKING AS IN-CHARGE SUPERVISOR SBCO
BIDAR, H. O. (NOW PLACED UNDER SUSPENSION)
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ANDOOR
BIDAR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY A. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH BIDAR CEN CRIME POLICE STATION
BIDAR-585 401
Digitally signed
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC
by SHILPA R PROSECUTOR
TENIHALLI HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH KALABURAGI BENCH-585 107.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. SRI S.N. HANDIGOL
S/O. NARAYAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT SUPDT OF POST
BIDAR
RESIDENT OF NEAR RAYRAMATHA, GOULIGALLI ROAD
MALAMADDI DHARWAD
NOW AT GANDHIGUNJ POST OFFICE
BIDAR-585 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI J. SHAHABUDDIN, H.C.G.P., FOR R-1, &
SRI SUDHIRSINGH R. VIJAYPUR, DSGI FOR R-2)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6624
CRL.P No. 200045 of 2023
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.16/2022
DATED 21.10.2022 REGISTERED BY BIDAR CEN CRIME POLICE
STATION/1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 406, 409, 417, 419 AND 420 OF THE IPC AND
SECTIONS 66(C) AND 66(D) OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
ACT, 2008, INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) AND C.J.M.
COURT, BIDAR.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner/accused No.1 has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') praying to quash the proceedings in Crime No.16 of 2022 of Bidar CEN Crime Police Station, Bidar, pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Bidar, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 417, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2008.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader -3- NC: 2023:KHC-K:6624 CRL.P No. 200045 of 2023 for respondent No.1-State and perused the material on record.
3. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, respondent No.1-Police registered a case in Crime No.16 of 2022 against the petitioner for having committed the aforesaid offences.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offences. He is a law abiding citizen and he is responsible Central Government Officer working as in- charge supervisor SBCO, Bidar Head Office.
5. Learned counsel further contended that as per the complainant himself, the duty of the petitioner is to examine scheme wise consolidation received from H.O. and S.Os, checking of entries in LOTS viewed from financial MIS server and checking the daily/progressive totals in the cash book and general cheque of vouchers, writing of objections and maintenance of objection -4- NC: 2023:KHC-K:6624 CRL.P No. 200045 of 2023 register, entries of interests adjustments in financial and maintenance of interest adjustment register, undelivered/spoiled passbooks, preservations of records and hence, the petitioner has no authority to deal with the financial transactions by opening of account, transfer of amount, etc. and for such type of work, a person in- charge has been given authorisation by the competent authority and only then, such person would be competent to deal with such matters and if he has no such authorisation from the competent authority, he cannot be expected to be capable to deal with transfer of amount, etc.
6. On perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that on 26-10-2018, the petitioner took charge as in-charge Supervisor SBCO, Bidar, and the duty of the petitioner was to examine scheme wise consolidation received from H.O. and S.Os, checking of entries in LOTS viewed from financial MIS server and checking the daily/progressive totals in the cash book and general -5- NC: 2023:KHC-K:6624 CRL.P No. 200045 of 2023 cheque of vouchers, writing of objections and maintenance of objection register, entries of interests adjustments in financial and maintenance of interest adjustment register, undelivered/spoiled passbooks, preservations of records, etc.
7. Further perusal of the material available on record, it appears that while the petitioner was in-charge Supervisor, SBCO, Bidar, from 26-10-2018 to 17-8-2022, he fraudulently collected user IDs and passwords of many officials working in other Post Offices in Bidar Division and done CIF modifications in his own computer system in SBCO Section at Bidar Head Post Office, and fraudulently withdrawn the amount of Rs.26,91,984/- from POSB Accounts by opening a new IPPB Accounts of another person and linked to OSB Accounts with IPPB Accounts and transferred to other bank accounts. Thus, there is prima-facie case made out disclosing the ingredients of offences alleged against the petitioner. Now, investigation -6- NC: 2023:KHC-K:6624 CRL.P No. 200045 of 2023 is under progress. Hence, at this stage, the Court cannot quash the criminal proceedings.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAJEEV KOURAV v. BAISAHAB AND OTHERS reported in (2020) 3 SCC 317 has opined in paragraph No.8 as under:-
"8. It is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge sheet constitutes the ingredients of the offence/offences alleged. Interference by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
9. Admittedly, whether the petitioner has misappropriated the huge amount or not is a question of fact, which has to be probed by the investigating agency. Hence, the disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. At -7- NC: 2023:KHC-K:6624 CRL.P No. 200045 of 2023 this stage, only prima-facie case has to be seen and this ratio is laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S. NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2021 SC 1918.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion of the above facts and the ratio laid down in the decisions cited supra, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
11. Liberty is, however, reserved in favour of the petitioner to file an application, if desires, soon after filing of the charge-sheet.
In view of the dismissal of the main petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28