Allowed

Sri M H Sudhakar Bhat v. the State by

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2024CRL.P/1838/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chief Officer of a Pattana Panchayat, accused of fraudulently mutating katha records, sought quashing of private complaint proceedings. Holding the acts were in discharge of official duty and no Section 197 Cr.P.C. sanction was obtained, the High Court quashed proceedings against him.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings in C.C.No.12/2018 before Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Somwarpet, and further proceedings under Section 200 Cr.P.C., quashed as against petitioner.

Sri M H Sudhakar Bhat Vs the State by — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:4582 CRL.P No. 1838 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1838 OF 2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. M H SUDHAKAR BHAT S/O M HARIDAS BHAT AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT REVATHI HOUSE KODIJAL TENKILA PUTTUR TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 201

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. PRASHANTH B.K, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE BY SOMWARPET POLICE STATION KODAGU MADIKERI REPRESENTED BY SPB HIGH COURT BUILDING HIGH COURT BENGALURU – 560 001

¶16

SRI H N RAMACHANDRA S/O LATE H T NARASA R/O RANGERS BLOCK

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:4582 CRL.P No. 1838 of 2020

¶19

SOMWARPET KODAGU-571 236

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R.1; SRI.SATHISH D.J, ADVOCATE FOR R.2)

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.12/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SOMWARPET AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS U/SEC.200 OF CR.P.C. PURSUANT THERETO WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT DOCUMENT NO.1 AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The captioned criminal petition is filed by the Chief Officer, who is arrayed as accused No.2, in C.C.No.12/2018 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge

¶26

and JMFC, Somwarpet for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 465 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:4582 CRL.P No. 1838 of 2020

¶28

Respondent No.2 – Complainant has filed a

¶29

private complaint alleging that accused No.1 based on the concocted and fraudulent documents submitted an application before the present petitioner – accused No.2 requesting for change of katha. Respondent No.2 – Complainant further alleged that present petitioner and other accused in collusion with accused No.1 have transferred katha thereby deleting name of respondent No.2 – Complainant. Respondent No.2 – Complainant has further alleged that he has approached Office of the Pattana Panchayath and filed an application and brought

¶30

to the notice of accused No.1. It is also alleged that accused No.2 has issued notice to accused No.1 calling him to furnish documents.

¶31

The grievance of respondent No.2 –

¶32

Complainant against petitioner is that though he has issued a notice to accused No.1 to furnish documents to substantiate his claim, no action is taken till then. The present petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 alleging that

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:4582 CRL.P No. 1838 of 2020

¶35

he along with accused No.1 and other accused have

¶36

cheated respondent No.2 – Complainant.

¶37

Learned Magistrate having examined sworn statement of the complainant and referring to the other materials has opined that there are prima-facie materials

¶38

to proceed against accused Nos.1 to 12 and hence, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance by acting under Section 204(1)(b) of Criminal Procedure Code and process is issued against petitioner and other accused.

¶39

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader. Perused the allegations made in the complaint. I have also taken note of the order passed by the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance under Section 204(1)(b) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465 read with 34 of IPC and issuing process to the present petitioner and other accused.

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:4582 CRL.P No. 1838 of 2020

¶41

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

¶42

in support of his contention, has placed reliance on the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of INDRA DEVI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

¶43

AND OTHERS passed in Criminal Appeal No.593/2021 and Criminal Appeal No.594/2021. Perused the judgment cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶44

The short point that needs consideration at the

¶45

hands of this Court is;

¶46

As to whether learned Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance even against the petitioner, who is the Chief Officer of Pattana Panchayath?

¶47

The petitioner admittedly being a public servant, the learned Magistrate could not have proceeded

¶48

against petitioner in absence of sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.

¶49

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:4582 CRL.P No. 1838 of 2020

¶50

This Court is also of the view that if respondent No.2 – Complainant is aggrieved by the impugned resolution thereby deleting respondent No.2 - complainant’s name and mutating name of accused No.1, he has efficacious remedy by way of appeal insofar as petitioner is concerned. If accused No.1 has got his name mutated based on the fraudulent documents, it is a matter of trial and respondent No.2 can very well prosecute accused No.1 with other accused.

¶51

However, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra, the alleged indulgence by the present petitioner – accused No.2 and the allegations that he in collusion with accused No.1 has cheated respondent No.2 – Complainant by transferring katha in the name of accused No.1 is squarely committed while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:4582 CRL.P No. 1838 of 2020

¶54

If resolution is passed by the Chief Officer in discharge of his duty, no proceedings can be initiated as there is a bar under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. Section 197 of the Cr.P.C delineates a crucial safeguard aimed at protecting public servants from vexatious and frivolous prosecutions arising out of acts purportedly performed in the discharge of their official duties. It mandates that prosecution for offenses allegedly committed by public servants in the course of their official duties requires prior sanction from the appropriate authority. This statutory provision serves to strike a delicate balance between accountability for misconduct and the necessity of safeguarding public officials from unwarranted legal harassment, thereby preserving the efficient functioning of governmental machinery.

¶55

This legal precept finds its mooring in the foundational principles of procedural regularity and statutory compliance, which underpin the administration of justice. The significant of obtaining prior sanction cannot

¶56

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:4582 CRL.P No. 1838 of 2020

¶57

be overstated, as it constitutes a jurisdictional imperative predicated upon the legislative intent to circumscribe the magistrate’s authority in instances where public servants are implicated in criminal proceedings arising from acts ostensibly performed in the discharge of their official duties. The absence of such sanction effectively renders

¶58

any cognizance taken by the magistrate ultra vires and legally infirm. Consequently, in the absence of the requisite sanction, the learned Magistrate is precluded from assuming cognizance of offenses falling within the ambit of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.

¶59

It is well settled that an application under

¶60

Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is maintainable to quash proceedings, which are ex facie bad for want of sanction, frivolous or in abuse of process of Court. If, on the fact of the complaint, the act alleged appears to have a reasonable relationship with official duty, where the criminal proceeding is apparently prompted by mala fides and instituted with ulterior motive,

¶61

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:4582 CRL.P No. 1838 of 2020

¶62

power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code would have to be exercised to quash the proceedings, to prevent abuse of process of Court. Therefore, absence of such sanction operates as a legal impediment depriving the Magistrate of jurisdiction to proceed, thereby necessitating strict adherence to statutory prerequisites as a sine qua non for the lawful initiating of criminal proceedings against public servants for acts purportedly performed in the discharge of their official duties.

¶63

Therefore, purely on this point, for want of sanction, I am of the view that the proceedings against petitioner are not maintainable and are liable to be quashed insofar as petitioner is concerned.

¶64

For the reasons stated supra, I proceed to pass the following;

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(i) The criminal petition is allowed.

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:4582 CRL.P No. 1838 of 2020

¶68

10 -

¶69

(ii) The entire proceedings pending in C.C.No.12/2018 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Somvarpet and all further proceedings under Section 200 Cr.P.C pursuant thereto are hereby quashed.

¶70

(iii) Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Sri M H Sudhakar Bhat v. the State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M H Sudhakar Bhat v. the State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anusha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Beeralingeshwara Vidya Samsthe (R) Vs H Manjunath

Nagaraj v Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Barkath Pasha Vs the Tahsildar Cum Taluk Executive Magistrate

Sri Rajanna S Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Sunitha S Kamath Vs Ekadatha Oil and Flour Mills