IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS CRIMINAL PETITION No.344 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
MR. K.J.KURUVILLA, SON OF LATE CHACKO JOSEPH PRINTERS INDIA, POST BOX NO.08, GORIGRAHAN ESTATE, MALLANDURU, CHIKAMAGALURU.
ALSO AT PRINTERS INDIA, NO.16, ST. MARK’ S ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001. … PETITIONER (BY SRI SACHIDANAND H.S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BENGALURU CITY DIVISION LOKAYUKTHA REP. BY ITS SPP M.S.BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE SECRETARY TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1, SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R-2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETR. IN SPL.C.(P.C.P NO.89/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE., CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CR.NO.69/2012 (PCR.NO.41/2012).
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the proceedings in Spl.C(P.C.).No.89/2016 on the file of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur, in Crime No.69/2012 arising out of PCR No.41/2012.
2. The petitioner purchased a Range Rover vehicle and got the same registered in Chikmagalur RTO on 30.03.2007. At the time of registration, the petitioner was called upon to pay Rs.9,99,628/- towards Life Time Tax. On payment of the tax the vehicle was registered in the name of the petitioner. Later the petitioner sold the vehicle on 11.03.2011. Thereafter, it transpires that the petitioner was called upon to pay difference amount of Rs.19,045/-, which according to the RTO was a shortfall of the tax that was required to be collected.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that even as per Section 8A of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, a notice was required to be issued to the petitioner, calling upon him explaining how there was a shortfall in collection of tax and thereafter the petitioner was required to pay the difference amount, if any. On the other hand, at the instance of one Sri B.N.Jagadisha, Advocate, a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. was filed in PCR No.41/2012 before the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and the learned Magistrate ordered investigation by the Dy.S.P. Police-3, Bangalore City Division, Karnataka Lokayukta. It transpires that after investigation, a chargesheet was filed, wherein the petitioner is shown as one of the accused along with the Officers of the RTO, Chikkamagaluru.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to a decision by a co-ordinate Bench in the case of S.Rajendran Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, in Crl.P.No.3087/2018 disposed of on 26.09.2019, where under similar circumstances and in a matter which arose out of the very same complaint made by Sri B.N.Jagadisha, this Court noticed that the difference of amount or shortfall was made good by the petitioner therein. The co-ordinate Bench, therefore, held that the chargesheet and the material placed along with the chargesheet do not disclose any overt-act on the part of the petitioner therein. Consequently, the petition was allowed and further proceedings with respect to the petitioner therein was quashed.
5. Learned Counsel for the first respondent- Lokayukta and the learned HCGP, appearing for the second respondent-Transport Department admit that similar orders as was passed in the case of S.Rajendran (supra) have been passed by this Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, along with a memo dated 19.11.2019 has produced a copy of the ‘B’ extract issued by the Transport Department in respect of vehicle bearing No.KA-18-NE-0001 showing payment of tax of Rs.19,045/-.
6. This Court is in respectful agreement with the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of S.Rajendran (supra). This Court is also satisfied that the difference of tax has been paid by the petitioner and material to that effect has been placed on record. Therefore, the petition is allowed. All further proceedings in Spl.C (P.C.).No.89/2016 on the file of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur, in Crime No.69/2012 arising out of PCR No.41/2012 are hereby quashed and set aside.
It is ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE JT/-