Karnataka High Court
Sri M P Bahadhur vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 September, 2014
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25 T H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY
CRIMINAL PETI TION No.3145/2014
C/W
CRIMINAL PETI TION No.3231/2014
IN CRIMINAL PETI TION No.3145/2014
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.M.P.BAHADHUR,
S/O SRI.MAHANAND SAB,
AGE ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RETIRED I/C TAHSILDAR,
SHIRASTHEDAR (R.R.T)
R/O KURATTI, SHIRAGUPPA ROAD,
BELLARY - 583102.
2. SRI.K.R. THIPPESWAMY,
S/O SRI.RUDRAPPA, AGE:42 YEARS,
EARLIER I/C REVENUE INSPECTOR
AND VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT,
TEKKALAKOTE, SHIRAGUPPA TALUK,
BELLARY DIST.
NOW WORKING AS VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT,
AT KAGALI VILLAGE, H.B.HALLI, TQ.
BELLARY DIST: 583221.
3. SR.B.MADDILETI, S/O SRI KENCHAIAH,
AGE: 45 YEARS, VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT,
SIRIGERI, SHIRAGUPPA TALUK,
2
BELLARY DISTRICT.
NOW WORKING AS VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT
AT KUDLGI TALUK OFFICE,
BELLARY DIST: 583104.
... PETI TIONERS
(BY SRI.S.P.KULKARNI, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPTD. BY SIRAGUPPA POLICE,
NOW REPRESENTED BY STATE P.P.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560001.
2. SRI.M.N.MANJUNATHA,
TAHASHILDAR, SIRAGUPPA,
DIST: BELLARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.S.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1
R2 SERVED)
THIS PETI TION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETI TIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.362/14 ON THE FILE OF
THE JMFC, SIRAGUPPA, BELLARY DISTRICT, REGD.
U/SEC. 409, 417, 420, 468, 471 R/W 34OF IPC AND
ALSO SEC. 192A OF KLR ACT, 1964, BEING
ARBI TRARY, ERRONEOUS AND NOT MAINTAINABLE
IN LAW IN SO FAR AS THE PETI TIONERS HEREIN ARE
CONCERNED.
IN CRIMINAL PETI TION No.3231/2014
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.BHAGAVANTHAPPA S/O RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
3
R/O HIRE HADLIGI (NOW),
TALUK & DIST: BELLARY - 583216.
2. SRI.MALLAYYA S/O LATE SOMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/O TEKKALAKOTE,
TALUK: SHIRAGUPPA, DIST: BELLARY-583121.
3. SRI.A.LAKKAPPA S/O LATE LANKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/O TEKKALAKOTE,
TALUK: SHIRAGUPPA, DIST: BELLARY-583121.
...PETI TIONERS
(BY SRI.SRIKANTH PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPTD. BY SIRAGUPPA POLICE,
NOW REPRESENTED BY STATE P.P.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560001.
2. SRI.M.N.MANJUNATHA,
TAHASHILDAR, SIRAGUPPA,
DIST: BELLARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.S.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1,
R2 SERVED)
THIS PETI TION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETI TIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.362/14 ON THE FILE OF
THE JMFC, SIRAGUPPA, BELLARY DISTRICT, REGD.
U/SEC. 409, 417, 420, 468, 471 R/W 34OF IPC AND
ALSO SEC. 192A OF KARNATAKA LAND RREVENUE
ACT, 1964, BEING ARBI TRARY, ERRONEOUS AND
4
NOT MAINTAINABLE IN LAW IN SO FAR AS THE
PETI TIONERS HEREIN ARE CONCERNED.
THESE PETI TIONS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
A case has been registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 417, 420, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and also under Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the proceedings. The grounds urged by the petitioners are that, some of the petitioners retired from the service and secondly, before registering a criminal case, sanction should have been obtained as per Section 34 of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 and further, as per Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, 5 an opportunity should have been accorded to the petitioners before registering the complaint.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that complaint had been lodged after finding the fact that these petitioners have misused their office while in service and converted the government lands by making revenue entries in favour of the private individuals.
3. The first ground urged by the petitioners is in respect of requirement of sanction as required under Section 34 of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977. The complainant is none other than the Tahasildar, Siruguppa. He has addressed the complaint to the Siruguppa Police alleging that in respect of Sy.No.201/A measuring 36.18 acres which is government inam land, the same has been mutated in favour of some individuals referred to in the complaint and these 6 petitioners were working in the office at the relevant point of time, and sought to take action as per Sections 409, 417, 420, 468, 471 and also under Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. In the light of this complaint, requirement under Section 34 of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977, has been examined. It reads that, no suit, prosecution or other proceeding shall lie against the State Government for any act done or purporting to be done under this Act or any rule made thereunder. Under sub Sections (2) and (3) of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977, it is an offence. The plain reading of the said section requires, as if, a sanction from the government is required while filing the complaint. But reading the same, it should be such that the sanction is required when a complaint is made against the government official working under Karnataka Certain Inams 7 Abolition Act, 1977 and if any person find to prosecute, then sanction is required. But in the instant case, the complainant itself is the government against government officials. A sanction is required in case if the complaint is made by the private individuals against the government officials. But when the government itself wants to prosecute its employees, then nobody's sanction/permission is required. This is the real meaning of Section 34 of the Act. Under these circumstances, I do not find any good reasons to interfere.
4. Under Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, as is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, an opportunity is to be granted. It is true that before filing the complaint opportunity is to be granted. In the instant case, petitioners have not been punished. Hence, no 8 opportunity needs to be granted. Filing a criminal case against the petitioners by the government that means to say, is a reasonable opportunity. When such guarantee is accorded to the petitioners, the complaint itself is futile one. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgment reported in ILR 2008 KAR 4520. I have gone through the judgment and find it is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. Hence, both the petitions stand rejected. All the contentions are kept open.
SD/-
JUDGE MBS/-