Sri M H Sudhakar Bhat vs The State By
2024 Latest Caselaw 3234 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri M H Sudhakar Bhat vs The State By on 2 February, 2024

                                         -1-
                                                      NC: 2024:KHC:4582
                                                 CRL.P No. 1838 of 2020




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                      DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                                       BEFORE

                  THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

                         CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1838 OF 2020

             BETWEEN:

                   SRI. M H SUDHAKAR BHAT
                   S/O M HARIDAS BHAT
                   AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
                   RESIDING AT REVATHI HOUSE
                   KODIJAL TENKILA
                   PUTTUR TALUK
                   DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 201

                                                          ...PETITIONER
             (BY SRI. PRASHANTH B.K, ADVOCATE)

Digitally
signed by    AND:
ALBHAGYA
Location:    1.    THE STATE BY
HIGH COURT
                   SOMWARPET POLICE STATION
OF
KARNATAKA          KODAGU
                   MADIKERI
                   REPRESENTED BY SPB
                   HIGH COURT BUILDING
                   HIGH COURT
                   BENGALURU - 560 001

             2.    SRI H N RAMACHANDRA
                   S/O LATE H T NARASA
                   R/O RANGERS BLOCK
                                 -2-
                                                NC: 2024:KHC:4582
                                         CRL.P No. 1838 of 2020




    SOMWARPET
    KODAGU-571 236

                                                ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R.1;
SRI.SATHISH D.J, ADVOCATE FOR R.2)


        THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC.482 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.12/2018 PENDING ON THE
FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SOMWARPET
AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS U/SEC.200 OF CR.P.C.
PURSUANT        THERETO        WHICH     ARE     PRODUCED        AT
DOCUMENT NO.1 AND ETC.


        THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                               ORDER

The captioned criminal petition is filed by the

Chief Officer, who is arrayed as accused No.2, in

C.C.No.12/2018 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge

and JMFC, Somwarpet for the offence punishable under

Sections 420 and 465 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

NC: 2024:KHC:4582

2. Respondent No.2 - Complainant has filed a

private complaint alleging that accused No.1 based on the

concocted and fraudulent documents submitted an

application before the present petitioner - accused No.2

requesting for change of katha. Respondent No.2 -

Complainant further alleged that present petitioner and

other accused in collusion with accused No.1 have

transferred katha thereby deleting name of respondent

No.2 - Complainant. Respondent No.2 - Complainant has

further alleged that he has approached Office of the

Pattana Panchayath and filed an application and brought

to the notice of accused No.1. It is also alleged that

accused No.2 has issued notice to accused No.1 calling

him to furnish documents.

3. The grievance of respondent No.2 -

Complainant against petitioner is that though he has

issued a notice to accused No.1 to furnish documents to

substantiate his claim, no action is taken till then. The

present petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 alleging that

NC: 2024:KHC:4582

he along with accused No.1 and other accused have

cheated respondent No.2 - Complainant.

4. Learned Magistrate having examined sworn

statement of the complainant and referring to the other

materials has opined that there are prima-facie materials

to proceed against accused Nos.1 to 12 and hence,

learned Magistrate has taken cognizance by acting under

Section 204(1)(b) of Criminal Procedure Code and process

is issued against petitioner and other accused.

5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader.

Perused the allegations made in the complaint. I have also

taken note of the order passed by the learned Magistrate

while taking cognizance under Section 204(1)(b) of Cr.P.C

for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465 read

with 34 of IPC and issuing process to the present

petitioner and other accused.

NC: 2024:KHC:4582

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

in support of his contention, has placed reliance on the

dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

INDRA DEVI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

AND OTHERS passed in Criminal Appeal No.593/2021

and Criminal Appeal No.594/2021. Perused the judgment

cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

7. The short point that needs consideration at the

hands of this Court is;

As to whether learned Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance even against the petitioner, who is the Chief Officer of Pattana Panchayath?

8. The petitioner admittedly being a public

servant, the learned Magistrate could not have proceeded

against petitioner in absence of sanction under Section

197 of Cr.P.C.

NC: 2024:KHC:4582

9. This Court is also of the view that if

respondent No.2 - Complainant is aggrieved by the

impugned resolution thereby deleting respondent No.2 -

complainant's name and mutating name of accused No.1,

he has efficacious remedy by way of appeal insofar as

petitioner is concerned. If accused No.1 has got his name

mutated based on the fraudulent documents, it is a matter

of trial and respondent No.2 can very well prosecute

accused No.1 with other accused.

10. However, in the light of the law laid down by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra, the

alleged indulgence by the present petitioner - accused

No.2 and the allegations that he in collusion with accused

No.1 has cheated respondent No.2 - Complainant by

transferring katha in the name of accused No.1 is squarely

committed while acting or purporting to act in discharge of

his official duty.

NC: 2024:KHC:4582

11. If resolution is passed by the Chief Officer in

discharge of his duty, no proceedings can be initiated as

there is a bar under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. Section 197 of

the Cr.P.C delineates a crucial safeguard aimed at

protecting public servants from vexatious and frivolous

prosecutions arising out of acts purportedly performed in

the discharge of their official duties. It mandates that

prosecution for offenses allegedly committed by public

servants in the course of their official duties requires prior

sanction from the appropriate authority. This statutory

provision serves to strike a delicate balance between

accountability for misconduct and the necessity of

safeguarding public officials from unwarranted legal

harassment, thereby preserving the efficient functioning of

governmental machinery.

12. This legal precept finds its mooring in the

foundational principles of procedural regularity and

statutory compliance, which underpin the administration of

justice. The significant of obtaining prior sanction cannot

NC: 2024:KHC:4582

be overstated, as it constitutes a jurisdictional imperative

predicated upon the legislative intent to circumscribe the

magistrate's authority in instances where public servants

are implicated in criminal proceedings arising from acts

ostensibly performed in the discharge of their official

duties. The absence of such sanction effectively renders

any cognizance taken by the magistrate ultra vires and

legally infirm. Consequently, in the absence of the

requisite sanction, the learned Magistrate is precluded

from assuming cognizance of offenses falling within the

ambit of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.

13. It is well settled that an application under

Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is

maintainable to quash proceedings, which are

ex facie bad for want of sanction, frivolous or in abuse of

process of Court. If, on the fact of the complaint, the act

alleged appears to have a reasonable relationship with

official duty, where the criminal proceeding is apparently

prompted by mala fides and instituted with ulterior motive,

NC: 2024:KHC:4582

power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code

would have to be exercised to quash the proceedings, to

prevent abuse of process of Court. Therefore, absence of

such sanction operates as a legal impediment depriving

the Magistrate of jurisdiction to proceed, thereby

necessitating strict adherence to statutory prerequisites as

a sine qua non for the lawful initiating of criminal

proceedings against public servants for acts purportedly

performed in the discharge of their official duties.

14. Therefore, purely on this point, for want of

sanction, I am of the view that the proceedings against

petitioner are not maintainable and are liable to be

quashed insofar as petitioner is concerned.

15. For the reasons stated supra, I proceed to

pass the following;

ORDER

(i) The criminal petition is allowed.

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:4582

(ii) The entire proceedings pending in C.C.No.12/2018 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Somvarpet and all further proceedings under Section 200 Cr.P.C pursuant thereto are hereby quashed.

(iii) Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NBM