Dismissed

Sri C R Thimmaraju v. State by Chikkanayakanahalli

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2020CRL.P/4846/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Cr.P. No.4846/2020, this Court refused to quash an FIR alleging misappropriation of mid-day meal funds. The petitioner argued a contract employee alone confessed to the loss and refunded part of it. The Court held the petitioner was the in-charge Assistant Director over 15 years, with serious allegations remaining against the larger fund amount, warranting investigation rather than quashing.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty reserved to file a discharge application if a charge sheet is filed.

Sri C R Thimmaraju Vs State by Chikkanayakanahalli — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.P.No.4846/2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4846/2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.C.R.THIMMARAJU, S/O LATE RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS A HEAD MASTER, GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL, HEBBUR, TUMAKURU TALUK – 572 101, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. ALSO R/AT “MATHRUCHAYA NILAYA’, 1^ST CROSS, MANJUNATHA NAGAR, TUMAKURU TALUK – 572 101. ... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE BY CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT – S.P.P., BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶13

SRI.B.P.NAGARAJAPPA, EDUCATION OFFICER, “AKSHARA DASOHA”,

¶14

Crl.P.No.4846/2020

¶15

¶16

JILLA PANCHAYATH, TUMAKURU – 572 101.

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASHED THE SAID FIR IN CR.NO.124/2019 DATED 12.10.2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TUMAKURU DISTRICT AND ON PERUSAL AN OFFENCE P/U/S 408, 409, 465, 477 –A, 37 OF IPC.

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THROUGH PHYSICAL APPEARANCE, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing of the proceedings in Crime No.124/2019 dated 12.10.2019 registered by Chikkanayakanahalli Police Station and now pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli, Tumkur District, for the

¶23

alleged offences punishable under Sections 408, 409, 465, 477A and 37 of IPC.

¶24

Crl.P.No.4846/2020

¶25

¶26

Respondent No.1-Police registered a case in Crime No.124/2019 on 12.10.2019 against the petitioner as accused No.1 and other persons for the aforesaid offences on the basis of complaint lodged by respondent No.2-Education Officer, Akshara Dasoha Jilla Panchayath. It is alleged that while the petitioner was working as an Assistant Director of Akshara Dasoha (Mid-Day-Meal) in

¶27

Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk Panchayath from 2003 to 2018, one Smt.C.P.Shruthi who was working in the said office, has created bank account in her name and in the names of Smt.Lakshmamma, Smt.Vijaya, Smt.Mamatha Sree and Smt.Anjinamma and transferred large funds of the Government funds to those accounts amounting to Rs.34,98,712/-. It is alleged that the petitioner and others had illegally created the documents in order to mis-appropriate the funds during his tenure and action was sought by filing a complaint before respondent No.1-Police.

¶28

Crl.P.No.4846/2020

¶29

¶30

Sri.Narasimharaju, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was vested with no power to do any financial transaction in relation to Akshara Dasoha Scheme and he could not have transferred any money. He also relies on the affidavit executed by Smt.C.P.Shruthi, wherein she has accepted that an amount of Rs.16,68,277/- had been transferred by her to the accounts of her mother and sister and having accepted the commission of offence, she has also refunded amount of Rs.10,35,000/- to the Government. Therefore, he submits that the proceeding insofar as the petitioner is concerned, once the said Smt.C.P.Shruthi has accepted the culpability, would be a transit of justice and it is required to be quashed.

¶31

Per contra, Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State would submit that there are serious allegations, which are made against the petitioner. The petitioner being the Assistant Director of Akshara Dasoha Scheme for the years 2003 to

¶32

Crl.P.No.4846/2020

¶33

¶34

2018, the mis-appropriation having occurred during the said period, the serious allegations made against the petitioner along with other officers who are all employees and therefore, pending investigation, the above petition ought not to be considered by this Court and investigation is required to be proceeded with.

¶35

Having considered the rival submissions made by the parties and on perusing the papers, it is seen that the allegations are made with regard to mis-appropriation

¶36

of Rs.34,98,712/-. The affidavit filed by Smt.C.P.Shruthi indicates only amount of Rs.16,68,277/- leaving a balance of a sum of Rs.18 lakhs, which is unaccounted for. Even if it is assumed, at this stage that, Smt.C.P.Shruthi is alone responsible for mis-appropriation of funds, she can at the most be responsible to an extent of Rs.16,68,277/- and not for the entire amount of Rs.34,98,712/-.

¶37

Crl.P.No.4846/2020

¶38

¶39

The contention of Sri.Narasimharaju, learned counsel for the petitioner that Smt.C.P.Shruthi who was a contract employee and a data entry operator was alone responsible for the entire mis-appropriation, cannot be believed at this stage. It is the petitioner who was the Assistant Director for the years 2003 to 2018 and was responsible for the conduct of Akshara Dasoha Scheme in the area allocated to him.

¶40

The Akshara Dasoha Scheme being a Mid-Day-Meal Scheme provided by the State to enable the students of economically weaker section to attend the school and obtain mid-day-meal, so as to continue their education. The allegation made against the petitioner as regards mis-appropriation of funds allocated to such students is a very serious offence, if it is proved to be committed by the petitioner.

¶41

The petitioner being an Assistant Director ought to have known the happenings and the payments made from and out of the funds allocated to Chikkanayakanahalli. The contention of the

¶42

Crl.P.No.4846/2020

¶43

¶44

petitioner that petitioner had nothing to do with that and that a contract employee working as a data entry operator had access to all funds and the Assistant Director cannot be made responsible is not ex-facie believable, at this stage, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out any case for interference by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The matter involves serious allegations made against the petitioner and others, which is required to be investigated in a proper and required manner. The contentions urged by the petitioner are more in the nature of defence, which could be placed by the petitioner before the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.

¶45

In view of the above discussion and reasoning, the petition is dismissed with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file a discharge application in the event of charge sheet being filed against the petitioner, which shall be considered independently and on its

¶46

Crl.P.No.4846/2020

¶47

¶48

own merits by the concerned Court in accordance

¶49

with law.

¶50

In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2020 for stay stands disposed of.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

Sri C R Thimmaraju v. State by Chikkanayakanahalli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C R Thimmaraju v. State by Chikkanayakanahalli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Praveen Shigganvi Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. R P Umadevi Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Sri Umeshgowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Ashitosh @ Ashish Mahaveer Kudachi Vs the State of Karnataka

U a Mohammed Hafeel Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Vaseem Ahmmed Vs the State by