This court quashed criminal proceedings against municipal officials accused of removing drainage slabs, holding prosecution without sanction was illegal and the matter was barred by the limitation period.
The proceedings in C.C.No.454/2019 against petitioners 1 to 3 were quashed, and the interpleader application I.A.1/2020 was disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5473 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
…Petitioners
(By Sri G.M.Ananda, Advocate)
:: 2 ::
AND:
M.T.Krishnappa, S/o Sri Thimmaiah, Aged about 74 years, R/at Punitha Hotel Complex, Adjacent to KSRTC Bus Stand, M.C.Road, Mandya-571401.
…Respondent
(By Sri R.S.Ravi, Advocate)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.454/2019 (PCR No.83/2019 dated 06.02.2019) pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya, Registered on 06.02.2019.
This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioners being accused 2 to 5 in C.C.454/2019 arising from PCR 83/2019 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya, have sought quashing of the proceedings against them.
:: 3 ::
of the complaint he has stated that in the early hours of 27.8.2015, accused 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 illegally removed the supporting walls built by him on the two sides of the drainage and removed the cement slabs covering the open drainage with the help of JCB and other machineries. He alleged excesses on the part of the petitioners and thus requested the Magistrate to initiate action for the offences under sections 24, 26, 43, 44, 119, 120B, 143, 447, 166, 432 read with 34 IPC.
:: 4 ::
was granted permission. In the first stretch he covered a part of the drainage with RCC slabs by building supporting walls on the two sides of the drainage. In the year 1999 he started covering the remaining portion, but at that time the City Municipal Council stopped his work. Therefore he made a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya, on 5.5.1999. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner by obtaining a report from the Assistant Commissioner directed the City Municipality to permit or allow the respondent to cover the remaining portion of the drainage and the same was communicated to him on 15.5.1999. But, the City Municipal Council by that time had passed a resolution withdrawing the permission accorded by it on 30.5.1980 and this resolution was challenged by the respondent by preferring an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. On 12.10.1999 the Divisional Commissioner set aside the resolution of the City Municipality which
:: 5 ::
thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 41060/1999 challenging the order of the Divisional Commissioner and it was dismissed. The City Municipality also filed a suit against the respondent, O.S.167/1999 for permanent injunction and it also came to be dismissed for non-prosecution in the year 2005. Therefore the respondent stated that the high handed acts of the petitioners and other accused resulted in his suffering loss to extent of Rs.24,00,000/-. In this regard he filed a suit claiming damages in O.S.84/2016. The same being decreed, the Municipality preferred an appeal to the High Court and it is still pending.
:: 6 ::
G.M.Ananda, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.S.Ravi, learned counsel for the
respondent.
:: 7 ::
1 to 3 cannot be prosecuted at all. The action initiated by the respondent is clear abuse of process of court.
to 4 exceeded their limits in the guise of cleaning the drainage. They demolished the supporting walls constructed by the respondent and also removed the RCC slabs. This has resulted in huge loss being suffered by the respondent. The respondent, at his expense had covered the drainage on the permission granted by the Municipality. If at all the drainage had to be cleaned, it was not necessary to remove the RCC slabs. Since offence has been committed by the petitioners in excess of their official duty, sanction is not necessary.
learned counsel. Given a plain reading to the averments made in the complaint, it is seen that
:: 8 ::
actually the respondent has complained of removing the RCC slabs covered on the drainage. It may be a fact that respondent was permitted to cover the drainage, but he was permitted with certain conditions and this is not disputed by the second respondent also. The petitioners 1 to 4 are all the officials of City Municipal Council, Mandya. He has alleged conspiracy in removing the RCC slabs. There are no materials to hold that the petitioners conspired to do so; more over there are no materials to hold that the petitioners exceeded their limits while cleaning the drainage. If on account of removal of the slabs, the respondent has suffered any loss, the remedy available to him is to file a suit for damages. In fact he filed a suit and obtained decree as can be made out from the complaint itself. Now an appeal is pending in this court. If this aspect is considered, it is possible to infer that probably the
:: 9 ::
respondent has taken recourse to criminal action without any justifiable cause.
:: 10 ::
understandable as to why the municipality having the responsibility of keeping the drainage clean would cause obstruction to the flow of sewerage water. Therefore this offence is also not attracted.
:: 11 ::
this view, petition is allowed. The proceeding against the petitioners in C.C.454/2019 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya are quashed.
Consequently, I.A.1/2020 filed for vacating the stay is also disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
ckl/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings against municipal officials in relation to acts alleged to be committed during discharge of official duty can be initiated without prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
Whether a complaint regarding an incident from 2015 can be validly cognised by a magistrate in 2019 due to the limitation period under Section 468 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
D.T. Virupakshappa v. C. SubashRelied on¶9
D.T.Virupakshappa Vs. C. Subash [(2015) 12 SCC 231] · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Chandrashekar L.
Sneha K.S.
Naveen B.
Rangaswamy
M.T. Krishnappa
Sreenivas Harish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
