Partly allowed

Sri K T Srinivash Murthy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2024CRL.P/349/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC was filed to quash an FIR alleging misappropriation of stamp duty. The Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR against the petitioner, holding that no investigation against him was justified as he was not entrusted with the funds per Rule 197 of the Karnataka Registration Rules.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR in Crime No. 108/2018 is quashed only insofar as it relates to the petitioner (Accused No. 2).

Sri K T Srinivash Murthy Vs State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:10995 CRL.P No. 349 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 349 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. K.T. SRINIVASH MURTHY, S/O K.R. THANDURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO. 2318, 14^TH WARD, KANDAVRA, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 103.

¶9

WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION CLERK, OFFICE OF SUB-REGISTRAR, BANNERUGHATTA, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 083.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SRINATH B.V., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by REPRESENTED BY BANNERGHATTA POLICE R HEMALATHA STATION HOUSE OFFICER, Location: HIGH COURT OF BANNERGHATTA, ANEKAL TALUK, KARNATAKA BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR C/O BASAVANAGUDI, REGISTAR OFFICE, BENGALURU, BENGALURU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 560 004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP)

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:10995 CRL.P No. 349 of 2024

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT-POLICE BANNERGHATTA IN CR.NO.108/2018 BEFORE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dn.) AND JMFC COURT, ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.34, 409, 420 OF IPC AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

An FIR was lodged by the 2nd respondent alleging that accused No.1, who was working as Sub-Registrar, accused No.2, who was working as First Division Assistant, and accused No.3, who was working as Second Division Assistant, in the office of Sub-Registrar, Jigani, connived with each other to misappropriate the amount collected from the public towards stamp duty and registration charges. The police registered the FIR for offenses punishable under Sections 409 and 420, read with Section 34 of the IPC. Taking exception to this, accused No.2 is before this Court.

¶20

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not entrusted with stamp duty and registration charges collected from the public. The responsibility for collecting stamp duty and registration charges lies with the Sub-Registrar concerned, as specified under Rule 197 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965. Hence, he submits that without entrustment of money to accused No.2, the registration of the FIR for the aforementioned offenses lacks substance. He further submits that the Sub-Registrar, as stated in the memo filed by him

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10995 CRL.P No. 349 of 2024

¶22

in Crl.P.No.4304/2018, has deposited a sum of Rs.4,58,93,134/-, which is alleged to have been misappropriated by accused No.2. Therefore, he submits that the registration of the FIR should be quashed.

¶23

3. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the allegations made in the FIR clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offenses. At this stage, the registration of the FIR cannot be interfered with, and the allegations require investigation. They seek dismissal of the petition.

¶24

4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

5. The allegation in the FIR is that accused Nos.1 to 3, in connivance with each other, have misappropriated the amount collected from the public towards stamp duty and registration charges. Rule 197 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965, specifies that every registering officer shall keep in his custody the fees received by him each day and shall invariably credit the same on the next working day into the Treasury. Sub-Rule (iii) specifies that every registering officer shall keep a separate Treasury Remittance Book, headed "Registration Department Remittance Book," in which he will enter the sums as they are paid into the local treasury, obtaining in the proper column the signature of the officer in charge of the Treasury.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:10995 CRL.P No. 349 of 2024

¶28

6. The petitioner - accused No.2, is working as Second Division Assistant in the office of the Sub-Registrar concerned. The responsibility and obligation to collect and remit the fees collected towards stamp duty and registration charges are entrusted to the Sub-Registrar concerned, as specified under Rule 197 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965. In the absence of any entrustment of the property with accused No.2, the allegation made in the FIR that accused No.2 has misappropriated the amount belonging to the government, in connivance with others, is without any substance. It is pertinent to note that accused No.1, who was working as Sub-Registrar, has paid the amount, alleged to have been misappropriated, in terms of the undertaking given by him before this Court in Crl.P.No.4304/2018. In view of the preceding analysis, the continuation of the investigation against accused No.2 would be an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶31

ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.108/2018 registered by the Bannerughatta Police Station, insofar as it relates to accused No.2, is hereby quashed.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

BNV

¶34

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Sri K T Srinivash Murthy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K T Srinivash Murthy v. State of Karnataka

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.P. Sharvani Vs Mrs. Shabanas Abdul Jaleel

Pattabhiramaiah Vs Rajanna

Sri. Seenappa Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

P. Arjun G Shenoy Vs the State of Karnataka

R Venkatachalapathi Vs the Deputy Commissioner

V Gopal Vs the State of Karnataka