Vijayakrishna M Vs the State

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G 1. THE STATE Location: BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE HIGH COURT OF BANGALORE KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SPP KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-01.

¶15

JAGADEESHA B.N. FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN ADVOCATE AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS JAGADEESH AND HARISH ASSOCIATES NO.3/14, 2^ND FLOOR

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:43132 CRL.P No. 6544 of 2021

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

DBS GURUSIDDAPPA AND SONS BUILDING 4^TH MAIN, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE 09.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. B.S.PRASAD, SPL.P.P. FOR R1; R2 - SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN SPL.C.C.NO.315/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, BANGALORE IN PCR.NO.41/2012.

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The criminal petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶27

"a) Call for the records in Spl.C.C.No.315/2016 on the file of the Hon'ble XXIII Addl. City Civil and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, Bangalore in PCR NO.41/2012, and

¶28

b) Quash the proceedings against the Petitioners in Spl.C.C.No.315/2016 on the file of the Hon'ble XXII Addl. City Civil and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, Bangalore in PCR NO.41/2012, and

¶29

c) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43132 CRL.P No. 6544 of 2021

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

A private complaint has been filed by respondent no.2 herein before XXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru alleging that certain officers in RTO Office at Bengaluru have deliberately collected less vehicle tax from certain car owners, resulting in a loss to the State Exchequer. He has alleged corrupt practices against the said officers and has requested appropriate action to be initiated against them. He has not impleaded any specific officer in the private complaint nor has he made any allegations against any one person. The matter was referred for investigation to the police. Respondent No.1-Police conducted the investigation and has filed a charge sheet against certain officers of RTO department in Bangalore (both retired and serving) and also vehicle owners, which has resulted in Spl.C.C.No.315/2016. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal petition is filed.

¶33

The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner has retired long back on 30.04.2005 whereas the complaint is lodged as late as in the year 2012. It is further submitted he has not committed any irregularities as alleged and subsequently the vehicle owners which were dealt by the

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:43132 CRL.P No. 6544 of 2021

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

petitioner have also deposited the differential tax and thereby ensuring that there is no loss caused to the Government. On the said ground, it is prayed that the criminal petition be allowed.

¶37

Respondent No.2, though served has remained absent.

¶38

The learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1 upon instructions submits that subsequently the amount required to be paid by the vehicle owners towards the vehicle tax has been paid voluntarily by them. He further submits that there are no incriminating materials against the petitioner herein.

¶39

Reliance is also placed by the petitioner upon the judgment passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.41103/2016 c/w Crl.P.Nos.5130/2016 and 6224/2016. It is submitted that petitioner is similarly placed as that of the petitioners in the said cases and the said writ petition and criminal petitions also arose out of Spl.C.C.No.315/2016 and that the proceedings against the petitioners therein have been

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:43132 CRL.P No. 6544 of 2021

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

quashed. Attention on the Court is drawn to paragraphs 23 and 24 of the said judgment which read as under :

¶44

"23. In that view of the matter, as already noticed, the occurrence of the events and accrual of cause of action in the present set of matters were between the years 2003 and 2006. The private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. was registered on 06.08.2012, while the FIR was registered on 14.08.2012. It is an admitted fact that except petitioners No.6 and 7, in Crl.P.No.5130/2016, who retired in the year 2013 and 2015 respectively, the other petitioners had already retired, way back in the year 2006-2007. Some of the petitioners continue to serve. However, as noticed earlier the State Government had declined to sanction prosecution against the serving employees. It was also observed in the Government Order that two of the employees had already retired and therefore the State Government declined to sanction prosecution. Further more, the State Government, while pointing out to Section 8(a) of the Taxation Act, had observed that if there was short collection of tax, the difference could be collected from the owners of the vehicles. It is an admitted fact that the owners of the vehicles were called upon to pay the difference amount and the same has been paid by them. Consequently, the criminal proceedings against the owners of the vehicles were quashed by this Court. Further, as held by the State Government, since Section 21 of the Taxation Act protects the Officers who acted in good faith, and since

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:43132 CRL.P No. 6544 of 2021

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

sanction to prosecute was declined by the State Government, the same benefit is required to be granted to the petitioners who are similarly placed. Some of the petitioners have already got the benefit of the order passed by the Government.

¶49

24. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitions deserve to be allowed and are accordingly allowed. Consequently, the order passed by the Special Judge in Spl.C.C.No.315/2016 taking cognizance of the private complaint and all further proceedings in that regard, as against the petitioners herein, stand quashed and set aside."

¶50

Admittedly, petitioner retired in the year 2005,

¶51

whereas the complaint has been lodged in the year 2012. No specific allegations have been made in the private complaint against the petitioner herein. The learned Special Public Prosecutor upon instructions, submitted that there is provision in law for vehicle owners to pay any pending dues with regard to unpaid tax and in respect of the vehicles for which the petitioner has collected taxes from the owners, the shortage of the tax has been subsequently paid by the vehicle owners and there is no loss to the State Exchequer due to the acts of the petitioner herein. The proceedings insofar as it relates to

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:43132 CRL.P No. 6544 of 2021

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

similarly situated persons have been quashed in

¶55

W.P.No.41103/2016 c/w Crl.P.Nos.5130/2016 and 6224/2016. In the light of the same, I do not see why the same benefit should not accrue to the petitioner.

¶56

Hence, the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

The criminal petition stands accordingly allowed ;

¶59

The proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.315/2016 pending on the file of XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, Bengaluru insofar as it relates to the petitioner herein stand quashed.

¶60

In view of disposal of main petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶61

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶62

PGG

Vijayakrishna M v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayakrishna M v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramanjani Vs State by Hennur Police

Siddalingappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Nithin Saraf Vs State of Karnataka

Ravikumar Vs State of Karnataka

Suresh. N. N. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Krishna Kuppaiah Naik Vs Sri N B Ravishankar