Dismissed

Anand B Appugol v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC16 Feb 2021CRL.P/100434/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a criminal W.P. under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings initiated in a private complaint for misappropriation. Court rejected petition holding a Board resolution dated 28/12/2011 authorized the Managing Director to lodge the complaint under Section 61(2)(b) of the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, thus finding no merit in the plea.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition for quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed. Associated IA 2/2017 was also dismissed.

Anand B Appugol Vs the Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT CRL.P. NO.100434/2017

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ANAND B APPUGOL AGE:51 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS R/O:RISALDAR GALLI, VIVEKANAND MARG NEAR TARUN BHARAT PRESS, BELGAUMPRESENTLY RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 2, 1ST STAGE, HANUMAN NAGAR, BELAGAVI (CHAIRMAN OF SHRI KRANTI VEER SANGOLLI RAYANNA CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI NIYAMIT, BELGAUM. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.S.H.MITTALKOD, ADV. FOR SRI: V M SHEELVANT, ADV.)

¶8

AND

¶9

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE SOUHARD FEDERAL CO-OPERATIVE LTD. (STATUTORY BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KSS ACT, 1977) NIRMAN BHAVAN, DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD, 1ST BLOCK RAJAJI NAGAR, BANGALORE-10. ..Respondent (BY SRI.SRINAND A.PACHCHAPURE, ADV.)

¶10

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1074 OF 2012 (PRIVATE COMPLAINT NO. 121 OF 20120 PENDING ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS III BELAGAVI, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 68 OF KARNATAKA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI ACT 1997 AND SECTIONS 403, 405, 409, 418, 464, 447 (A) OF IPC.

¶12

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The prayer in this petition is for quashing the entire proceedings in CC No. 1074/2212 (P.C.No.121/2012) pending on the file of the learned JFMC III, Belgaum, for offences punishable under Sections 68 of the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 and Sections 403, 405, 409, 418, 464, 447(A) of IPC.

¶15

Since this petition is filed on the ground that the complaint lodged by the Managing Director of the Souharda Society is incompetent on account of violation of Section 61(2)(b) of the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of the case in detail.

¶16

¶17

A private complaint was presented before the learned

¶18

JMFC III, Belgaum, by the respondent herein against the petitioner on the allegation of commission of various offences Pertaining to misappropriation of more than Rs.2,00,000/- etc.

¶19

After necessary enquiry, the learned Court below has taken cognizance for offences punishable under Sections 68 of the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 and Sections 403, 405, 409, 418, 464, 447(A) of IPC.

¶20

The principal contention of the learned counsel for

¶21

the petitioner is complaint itself is not competent for want of resolution from the Board of Directors of the Society, authorising the Managing Director to lodge a complaint as has been done in this case.

¶22

The respondent represented by the Managing Director has entered appearance before this Court and the Managing Director Sharanagouda S/o Gurubasappagouda Patil has sworn detailed affidavit. Para 2 of the said affidavit reads as

¶23

follows:-

¶24

¶25

“ The Board of Directors of the Respondent Board learnt the mismanagement, misappropriation and embezzlement of public money by the Petitioner. Therefore the Respondent Board has conducted an Inspection through the Regional Manager. Regional Manager has conducted an Inspection and submitted an Inspection Report dated 10/10/2011. After receipt of the inspection Report the Board addressed and sought for explanation/clarification from the petitioner as per the notice dtd: 16/11/2011. After receipt of the notice Petitioner submitted a Muchalake Patra Dtd: 29/2/2012 and admitted mismanagement and misappropriation. Thereafter, he has submitted a letter dtd: 9/5/2012. When the petitioner has not responded immediately to the notice dtd: 16/11/2011, the Board has passed Resolution dtd: 28/12/2011 and thereby authorized as per Resolution No.6, the Managing Director of the Board to initiate appropriate action against the petitioner. The respondent Managing

¶26

¶27

Director being the Managing Director/Chief Executive is competent to sue and be sued as per Section 61(2)(b) of the K.S.S.Act. 1997. Similarly as per Section 37 of the KSS Act, 1997 the criminal action also can be initiated against the person who has committed the offences narrated under Section 68(2) of the KSS Act, 1997. When any such offences are committed, under Section 69 of the Act, the Magistrate of the First Class is empowered to take cognizance of the offence. Therefore, after considering the inspection report, and in view of the authorization authorized by the Board through the Resolution dtd: 28/12/201, the Respondent, the Managing Director of the Karnataka State Souhard Federal co-operative Ltd., has lodged a Private Complaint U/Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C., for offences U/Sec.68 of K.S.S.Act and U/Sec. 403, 405, 409, 418, 464, 477-A of IPC.”

¶28

¶29

It is specifically stated on oath by the Managing Director that in view of the mismanagement and misappropriation done by the petitioner, the Board has passed the resolution dated 28/12/2011 authrorising the Managing Director of the Board to initiate appropriate action against the petitioner. What is stated in other words is that the said resolution empowers the Managing Director to present the private complaint interms of Section 61(2)(b) of the Karnataka Souuharda Sahakari Act, 1997.

¶30

In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the contention and accordingly, the contention is rejected.

¶31

Hence the following:

¶32

Accordingly, petition is dismissed.

¶33

In view of the above order, IA 2/2017 is dismissed.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

Vmb

Anand B Appugol v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand B Appugol v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep S Sangoram Vs State of Karnataka

Dhruvakumar S/O Veerappa Hosalli Vs the State of Karnataka

Ganesh S/O Gurunath Savanur Vs the State of Karnataka

Chigurupati Krishna Prasad Vs the State of Karnataka

Jitendra Shigihalli Vs Manoj S/O. Mohan Shetke

Jitendra Shigihalli Vs Manoj S/O. Mohan Shetke