IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6109/2014 BETWEEN KRISHNACHAR S/O. RAMACHAR, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT NEAR KAVERI SCHOOL, SHANTHINAGAR, TUMKUR TOWN, TUMKUR-572102. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI B.N.AMBRISH, ADV. FOR SRI SANTOSH S NAGARALE, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY TUMKUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.
2. SRI B AHOBALAIAH, TAHASILDAR, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR-572102. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R1, R2 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.150/14 FILED BY THE CRIME NO.40/14 U/S 408, 420, 468, 470, IPC AND SEC. 192(B) KLR ACT,1964 PENDING BEFORE THE PRL.SR. C.J. AND C.J.M., TUMKUR, (ANNEXURE- C).
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner was the Superintendent in the office of Tahsildar, Tumakuru Taluk at the relevant point of time. Tahsildar lodged a complaint against the petitioner and two other officials of the Taluk Office alleging that the petitioner and the two other officials without any authority, issued Saguvali Chit to one Lakshman, S/o.Thimmaiah and included the name of aforesaid Lakshman S/o.Thimmaiah in the proceedings relating to some other grantee.
2. After investigation, charge sheet has been laid only against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 468 and 470 of IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a public servant at the relevant point of time. The prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offences without prior sanction under Section 197 of Cr.PC is bad in law and therefore, solely on this ground, impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. Further, he submitted that there is inordinate delay in launching the prosecution against the petitioner . The alleged offence is stated to have taken place during the year 1996, but, the complaint was lodged on 2.4.2011 and there is no satisfactory explanation by the prosecution for the delay. On both these grounds, learned counsel seeks to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
4. Learned HCGP however has disputed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that, even though the complaint was made against three officials of Taluk office, in the course of the investigation, it was ascertained that the saguvali chit in question was in the handwriting of the petitioner herein. The said fact is ascertained through expert’s opinion during the course of the investigation and hence, there is prima facie material for the prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offence. The act alleged against the petitioner has no nexus with the duties assigned to him as Superintendent. The protection under sec 197 Cr.PC is available only when the alleged act done by Public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his office duty.
5. Having regard to the nature of the offences committed by the petitioner in my views, the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner is not necessary. The petitioner has not performed the alleged act either in discharge of his official duty or in the colour of the duties. Petitioner has not taken any such stand during the preliminary enquiry. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed in the petition.
6. Further, with regard to alleged delay in launching the prosecution is concerned, as rightly pointed out by the learned HCGP that the complaint came to be filed only when the offence committed by the petitioner came to the notice of the Tahsildar. Prior to registration of complaint, preliminary inquiry was also conducted to ascertain as to who were responsible for the said illegalities. Moreover, the offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment for more than three years. Therefore, the said contention does not avail to the benefit of the petitioner.
I do not find any merit in the instant petition warranting interference by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC. The contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner are rejected.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sk/- CT-HR