Dismissed

Sri. Balaraju H R v. Station House Officer

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2021WP/54322/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court held that intervening dates, potential unauthorized complaints, and stock discrepancies are matters for trial and do not justify terminating the investigation or trial.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed and the quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.63/2016 was denied.

Sri. Balaraju H R Vs Station House Officer — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.No.54322/2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.54322/2016(GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SRI.BALARAJU H.R. S/O LATE H.N.RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS WORKING AS JUNIOR ASSISTANT KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION (SOUTH), KADIRENAHALLI BANGALORE … PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV.)

¶11

AND :

¶12

STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 101

¶13

DISTRICT MANAGER

¶14

KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED, TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR – 572 101 … RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R1 SRI.G.B.NANDISH GOWDA, ADV. FOR SRI.R.B.SADASIVAPPA, ADV. FOR R2)

¶16

THE WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 08.12.2014 FILED IN C.C.NO.63/2016 (CRIME NO.0201/2012) ANNEXURE – A ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI

¶17

W.P.No.54322/2016

¶18

¶19

AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN C.C.NO.63/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE – B.

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.63/2016 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli is the abuse of process of the Court? is the question involved in this case.

¶23

On 22.09.2012, the petitioner was working as Junior Assistant/Manager in the wholesale godown of the Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd situated at Chikkanayanahalli of Tumkur District. On the allegation

¶24

of petitioner selling the food grains reserved for PDS beneficiaries stored in the said godown, to the black marketers , on 22.09.2012 Lokayukta Police conducted raid on the said godown.

¶25

Petitioner was allegedly found selling food grains worth Rs.4,000/- one Dhananjaya and caught. First Information Report was registered against him in

¶26

W.P.No.54322/2016

¶27

¶28

Crime No.8/2012 of Lokayukta Police Station, Tumkur for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(c) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It was alleged that during the trap the food grains and cash were recovered.

¶29

Thereafter the stock in the godown was allegedly inspected and audited. It was alleged that the petitioner found to have sold the food grains worth Rs.15,57,026/- illegally, thereby committed breach of trust and misappropriation. Regarding such breach of trust and misappropriation the second respondent viz., the District Manager of Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd, Tumkur District filed complaint as at Annexure-D before the first respondent Police.

¶30

On the basis of such complaint, the first respondent registered FIR as per Annexure-C in Crime No.201/2012 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 408,409 and 420 of IPC. The petitioner filed Crl.P.No.7970/2013 before this Court for

¶31

W.P.No.54322/2016

¶32

¶33

quashing of the said FIR. This Court vide order Annexure-Q dated 17.01.2014 dismissed the said petition on the ground that all the contentions raised by the petitioner are the matter of evidence. It was further observed that the petitioner can place all material at his command in support of his contentions before the Investigating Officer.

¶34

After dismissal of the said petition, investigation was conducted and charge sheet as at Annexure-A was filed on 08.12.2014. On the basis of charge sheet, the learned Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli has taken cognizance of the offences and registered the case in C.C.No.63/2016 and summoned the petitioner to take up trial.

¶35

Reiterating the petition averments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned proceedings on the following grounds:

¶36

i) He was arrested on 22.9.2012 and was released on bail on 29.09.2012. Between those two dates the godown was handled by others. Therefore he

¶37

W.P.No.54322/2016

¶38

¶39

cannot be held accountable for any shortage of stock in the godown;

¶40

ii) The Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District in Annexure-N dated 29.12.2012 recommended to the Commissioner and Managing Director, Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd for initiating action against the petitioner and the second respondent. The second respondent was not authorized or competent to file the complaint.

¶41

Learned HCGP and learned counsel for the second respondent oppose the petition on the following grounds:

¶42

i) On the same grounds, the petitioner challenged the First Information Report before this Court unsuccessfully. Therefore petitioner cannot re-urge the same grounds in this petition;

¶43

ii) On the date of trap itself, mahazar was conducted in the godown as noted in Annexure-D and then only the stock was found missing;

¶44

W.P.No.54322/2016

¶45

¶46

iii) The Managing Director of Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd, authorized the second respondent to file the complaint, therefore there is no merit in the contention that there is no authorization;

¶47

iv) The contention raised at the most may constitute the defence for the petitioner in the trial and on such contention, the proceeding cannot be quashed.

¶48

It is settled proposition of law that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. shall be sparingly exercised to quash the criminal proceedings. It is also settled proposition of law that the trial or the investigation shall not be scuttled by holding mini trial or making a roving enquiry at the stage of considering the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶49

Admittedly the petitioner is facing trial on the basis of the FIR registered against him in Crime No.8/2012 under the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation of selling the foodgrains reserved for the public distribution System under the Essential Commodities Act.

¶50

W.P.No.54322/2016

¶51

¶52

The petitioner claims that the stock was meddled in his absence between 22.09.2012 and 29.09.2012. Whereas the second respondent claims that on the very date of the trap, inspection was conducted in the presence of the Tahsildar and the Mahazar of the stock was drawn and that was found deficit. All these questions are the matter of trial.

¶53

The petitioner was already given an opportunity to go before the Investigating Officer to produce the material at his end. Petitioner’s counsel submits that the same was produced before the Investigating Officer. Even assuming that it was produced, the Investigating Officer has found material to proceed against the petitioner and filed the charge sheet. All such contentions may constitute the defence of the petitioner in the cross-examination of the complainant, the Investigating Officer or other prosecution witnesses. Therefore on such allegations at this stage the proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶54

W.P.No.54322/2016

¶55

¶56

So far as the allegation that the Deputy Commissioner directed the Commissioner and Managing Director of Food and Civil Supplies Ltd, Annexure-N shows that on the basis of the report of the Tahsildar and letter of the Police Inspector, Lokayukta, Tumkur District, the Deputy Commissioner recommended for taking action against the petitioner and the complainant in accordance with the rules.

¶57

The Deputy Commissioner is an Officer junior to the Commissioner and Managing Director of Food and Civil Supplies. Therefore the question of Deputy Commissioner directing them does not arise. Even the tenor of the letter shows that the Deputy Commissioner only recommended to take action in accordance with the rules against the petitioner and the complainant.

¶58

On examination of the same as per the records, the Managing Director of Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. has authorized the second respondent to file the complaint. Therefore at this stage

¶59

W.P.No.54322/2016

¶60

¶61

there is no merit in the contention that the second respondent was not authorized to file the complaint.

¶62

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find

¶63

any ground to quash the proceedings. The petition is

¶64

dismissed.

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66

akc

Sri. Balaraju H R v. Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Balaraju H R v. Station House Officer

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

Smt Asha P Shetty Vs Smt K Rupa

Smt Asha P Shetty Vs Smt K Rupa

Abdul Azeez Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Izaz @ Izza Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Leelavathi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Gangadharaiah Vs Sri Sreenivasamurthy