Kotresha H M Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.303/2019, PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT JAGALUR PURSUANT TO THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE 1^st RESPONDENT POLICE IN CR.NO.112/2011, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 406, 409, 417, 420, 465, 471, 34 OF IPC.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS , THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

In this petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs:

¶29

“To quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.303/2019 pending on the file of the Civil Judge & JMFC at Jagalur pursuant to the charge sheet filed by the 1^st respondent police in Crime No.112/2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 417, 420, 465, 471 and 34 of IPC.”

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶31

HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

¶32

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.2 filed the instant complaint which was registered as FIR in Crime No.112/2011 dated 24.10.2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 471, 417 r/w 34 of

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:28926 CRL.P No. 10441 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

IPC. Pursuant thereto, respondent – police authorities filed charge sheet leading to initiation of several criminal proceedings including C.C.No.217/2016, which was assailed by the very same petitioners in Crl.P.No.4842/2025 before this Court. By final order dated 21.04.2025 this Court allowed the said petition and quashed the criminal proceedings on the ground that Departmental Enquiry which had been initiated against the petitioners had been exonerated and in the light of the various judgments referred to by this Court in the said order, standard of proof being higher in criminal proceedings, exoneration of the petitioners in Departmental Enquiry would enure to their benefit in the criminal proceedings and consequently, proceeded to quash the impugned criminal proceedings. The said order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.4842/2025 reads as under:

¶36

“The petitioners accused Nos.2-3 who are facing Trial for the offences punishable under Section 409, 420, 465, 471, 417 r/w Section 34 of IPC are before this Court seeking relief.

¶37

2. The prosecution alleges that the petitionersaccused Nos.2 and 3, while serving as Secretary and Public Development Officer of Hiremallanahole Grama Panchayat along with accused No.1 misused the funds allotted under the MNREGA scheme, to an extent of Rs.19,42,072/-.

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:28926 CRL.P No. 10441 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶41

4. On the similar set of charges, the departmental enquiry was initiated by the Zilla Panchayat and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report stating that the charges against the petitioners were not proved. The Enquiry report was accepted by the competent authority and petitioners were exonerated on merits of all the charges leveled against them.

¶42

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal, (2011) 3 SCC 581, laid down the following principles:

¶43

(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously.

¶44

(ii) A decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution.

¶45

(iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent of each other.

¶46

(iv) A finding against the accused in adjudication proceedings is not binding on criminal prosecution.

¶47

(v) Adjudication by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of Cr.P.C.

¶48

(vi) If exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical grounds and not on merits, criminal prosecution may continue.

¶49

5 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:28926 CRL.P No. 10441 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

(vii) However, if exoneration is on merits, where the allegation is found to be unsustainable and the accused is held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts cannot continue, considering the higher standard of proof required in criminal cases.

¶53

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State (NCT of Delhi) v. P.S. Rajya, (1996) 9 SCC 1, held that exoneration in departmental proceedings does not automatically lead to acquittal in a criminal case. This view was later distinguished in State v. L. Krishnamohan, and it was clarified that P.S. Rajya is not an authority for the presumption that departmental exoneration necessarily leads to acquittal in criminal trials.

¶54

7. In Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (2015) 2 SCC 189, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a decision is per incuriam when a court has acted in ignorance of a binding precedent. Consequently, the decision in State (NCT of Delhi), which did not consider Radheshyam Kejriwal, is said to be per incuriam.

¶55

8. The Full Bench of this Court in Govindanaik G. Kalaghatigi v. West Patent Press Co. Ltd. held that when there is a conflict between two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of equal bench strength, the later decision prevails. Accordingly, the judgment in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. CBI, which followed Radheshyam Kejriwal, prevails over State (NCT of Delhi).

¶56

9. In the present case, all the material witnesses were examined in the departmental enquiry, and the enquiry

¶57

6 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:28926 CRL.P No. 10441 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

officer after considering the material on record submitted a report stating that the charges against the petitioners were not proved and the petitioners were exonerated on merits. Given this, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Since the petitioners have already been exonerated in the departmental proceedings, the prospect of securing a criminal conviction is bleak, as a higher standard of proof is required in a criminal trial.

¶61

10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.217/2016, pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Jagalur, insofar it relates to the petitioners herein is hereby quashed. Ordered accordingly.”

¶62

As stated supra, the aforesaid Crl.P.No.4842/2025 quashing C.C.No.217/2016 also arising out of the very same Crime No.112/2011, which has given rise to the present petition assailing C.C.No.303/2019. Under these circumstances, by applying doctrine of parity and in the light of the quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.217/2016 arising out the very same Crime No.112/2011, the impugned proceedings also deserves to be quashed.

¶63