IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA Crl.P. No. 9383/2016 BETWEEN :
Sri. Lokananda T.K. S/o. late Karyappa T.K. Aged about 48 years Ex-President, Nerugalale Grama Panchayat R/a. Areyuru VIllae Abburkatte Post Somawarapet Taluk Kodagu Dist. 571 236. … PETITIONER (By Sri. V.R. Sarathy, Adv.) AND :
1. The Police Sub-Inspector Somwarapet Police Station Kodagu Dist. 571 236.
2. The Executive Officer Taluk Panchayat Somawarapet Taluk Kodagu Dist. 571 236. … RESPONDENTS (By Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra, SPP-II) ---
This Crl.P. is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings initiated in pursuance of Cr. No. 346/2016 registered in FIR No. 525/2016 dated 11.11.2016 (Annexure-A and A1) against the petitioner which ispending before the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Somwarpet, Kodagu Dist., and etc.
This Crl.P. coming on for Admission this day, the Court passed the following;
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned SPP appearing for the respondents.
2. FIR is registered against the petitioner in Crime No. 346/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 408, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC at the instance of the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Somwarpet. The allegation made in the complaint is that during his tenure as the President of Nerugalale Grama Panchayat, petitioner herein misappropriated the public funds.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is illegal and without authority of law. Prior to the registration of FIR, Lokayukta had conducted an enquiry and submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and directed action against the petitioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short hereinafter referred to as `the Act 1993’) and therefore there was no authority for the second respondent to lodge a complaint against the petitioner contrary the directions issued by the Karnataka Lokayukta. Referring to Section 246 of the Act 1993, the learned counsel submitted that without conducting an audit of accounts by the concerned authorities under the Act, launching of prosecution against the petitioner for the offences under I.P.C. is vexatious and amounts to abuse of process of Court.
4. Refuting the above submissions learned SPP-II appearing for the State would submit that the prosecution is launched against the petitioner pursuant to the directions issued by the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department by order dated 06/08.06.2015 and not on the basis of the report of the Karnataka Lokayukta. Therefore, there is no illegality whatsoever in the initiation of criminal prosecution against the petitioner.
5. On considering the rival submissions, I find that the argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly misconceived and misplaced. There is no dispute with regard to the order passed by the Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act directing action against the petitioner herein under the provisions of the Act of 1993. But the instant proceedings are seen to have been initiated based on the directions of the Government dated 06/08.06.2015 in reference No.Gra.a.pa./111/Gra.Pam.Ka./2015 whereby second respondent has been directed to institute proceedings under the provisions of Act 1993 as well as under IPC. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the complaint lodged against him is without authority falls to the ground. There is no bar for simultaneous prosecution of the petitioner under two different Acts. The offence alleged against the petitioner are punishable under the provisions of IPC. As there are allegations in the complaint that the petitioner herein during his tenure as President of the Grama Panchayat has misappropriated the public funds, the impugned action does not warrant interference of this Court. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the stay granted in this proceedings, the petitioner did not obtain bail from the competent Court. But in view of the dismissal of this petition there is imminent threat of his arrest and he prays that the respondent police may be restrained from taking coercive action against the petitioner till he applies for bail from competent Court.
7. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No. 1 is directed not to arrest the petitioner or take coercive steps against the petitioner for a period of 30 days from today.
Petition dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE.
LRS.