Sri Chandrahasa S L Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:665 CRL.P No. 1794 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1794 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI CHANDRAHASA S L, S/O SRI LINGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, SALUPALYA VILLAGE, SEENAPPANAHALLI POST, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DIST. – 572 130

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RAMESH P KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY AURUTUR POLICE, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DIST. – 572 130.

¶12

Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

G N DEVARAJU S/O LATE NINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT GOWDAGERE VILLAGE, YEDIYUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DIST. - 572 130.

¶14

SMT LAXMAMMA PRESIDENT, KAGGRE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, YEDIYUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DIST. – 572 130. (DELETED AS PER THE ORDER OF THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED 06.03.2023)

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. M.M. WAHEEDA, HCGP FOR R1 R2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:665 CRL.P No. 1794 of 2023

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT IN C.C.NO.10953/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 418, 420, 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 23 OF K.T.P.P. ACT PENDING BEFORE THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL AGAINST THE PETITIONER.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.10953/2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 418, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 23 of Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶25

Respondent No.2 having been served with notice of the petition, has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not contested the petition.

¶26

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is working as Panchayat Development Officer in Kaggere Gram Panchayat since 2012.

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:665 CRL.P No. 1794 of 2023

¶29

Pursuant to a private complaint submitted by respondent No.2 against the petitioner and Lakshmamma, the matter was referred to jurisdictional Police authorities for investigation culminating in charge sheet and C.C.No.83/2016, which is pending before the learned Magistrate.

¶30

It is the case of the petitioner that since he is a public servant, necessary sanction by State Government ought to have been obtained under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence as against the petitioner and on this ground the impugned proceedings qua petitioner/accused No.2 deserves to be quashed. It is also submitted that even subsequently, sanction is not obtained by the Police authorities, even till today though charge sheet is filed as long back as on 24.08.2016. It is also submitted that a perusal of the allegations made in the private complaint, statement of witness, documents and charge sheet do not disclose that the petitioner is guilty of any of the offences alleged against him. It is therefore, submitted that on this ground also, the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner deserves to be quashed.

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:665 CRL.P No. 1794 of 2023

¶33

Further, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶34

that irregularities pointed out by respondent No.2-complainant have been subsequently rectified as evident from the material on record, in particular, the communication dated 24.10.2015. It is therefore submitted that the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner deserves to be quashed.

¶35

As rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, material on record discloses that prior/previous sanction by the State Government has not been obtained before the Magistrate took cognizance of the offences qua the petitioner who is undisputedly public servant as required under Section 197 of Cr.P.C, and consequently, the impugned proceedings for want/lack of sanction deserves to be quashed.

¶36

In addition thereto material on record also indicates that apart from the fact that the irregularities/defect have been subsequently rectified the contents of the private complaint, statement of witness, documents and charge sheet do not make out commission of any offences by the petitioner under Section 23 of Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 or

¶37

5 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:665 CRL.P No. 1794 of 2023

¶39

under Sections 418, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and on this ground also, the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed.

¶40

In the result, I pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i) The petition is hereby allowed.

¶43

ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.10953/2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 418, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 23 of Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal qua the petitioner are hereby quashed.

¶44

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶45

MDS

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Sri Chandrahasa S L v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Chandrahasa S L v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Sachin Patil Vs the State by Basavanagudi Police Station

Aravinda S Vs State of Karnataka

Asif Tambuli Vs K S Nagaraj

Sri.Sharan Kumar N Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Manjunath M S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sandeepa Reddy D Vs State of Karnataka by