[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Gtl Infrastructure Ltd vs The Secretary on 6 April, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2026:KER:30322
CRL.MC NO. 6934 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1948
CRL.MC NO. 6934 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN ST NO.751 OF 2021
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,ALATHUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,
66/4514, REP. BY ITS DY.CIRCLE HEAD, PRABHU TOWER,
2ND FLOOR, OPP.CHENNAI SILKS, M.G. ROAD NORTH
PALLIPADI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682035
BY ADV SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P).
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 THE SECRETARY,
ALATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ALATHUR P.O, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678541
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682031
SR.PP. SMT. SEETHA S.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.04.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:30322
CRL.MC NO. 6934 OF 2025
2
ORDER
Dated this the 6th day of April, 2026
The petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.751of
2021 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate-I, Alathur ('Trial Court' for short), which has
been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed
by the 1st respondent Panchayat alleging the commission
of the offences punishable under Section 210 of the
Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994('Act', for brevity) read
with Rule 27 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Taxation, Levy
and Appeal) Rules, 1996 ('Rules', in short).
2. The gist of the allegations in Annexure A2
complaint is that; the petitioner is liable to pay
Rs.6446/- to the 1st respondent towards the arrears of
tax for the period from 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, which
they have deliberately defaulted in payment. Thus, the
petitioner has committed the above offences.
2026:KER:30322
CRL.MC NO. 6934 OF 2025
3. I have heard the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, the learned Senior Public
Prosecutor and the learned Standing Counsel for the 1 st
respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that, even if the allegations in Annexure A2
complaint are taken on their face value, the same would
not attract the offences alleged against the petitioner.
He relies on the decisions of this Court in identical
matters, wherein this Court has held that, unless the
statutory remedies available to the Panchayat under
Section 210 of the Act are exhausted, a prosecution
cannot be launched. It was without resorting to the
above course, that the Panchayat has initiated recovery
proceedings to recover the alleged arrears, that the
prosecution has been launched, which is premature and
unsustainable in law. Therefore, the criminal
prosecution may be quashed.
2026:KER:30322
CRL.MC NO. 6934 OF 2025
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the 1 st
respondent and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor
oppose the Crl.M.C. They submit that there is no legal
bar for the 1st respondent to independently prosecute
the complaint against the petitioner. Therefore, this
Court may not embark upon a mini trial and terminate
the prosecution. Hence, the Crl.M.C. may be dismissed.
6. The principle contention of the petitioner
is that, in view of Section 210 of the Act, the 1st
respondent ought to have first taken steps to issue a
distraint warrant for recovery of the money before
initiating the prosecution.
7. In the above context, it is profitable to
refer to Section 210 of the Act, which reads as follows:
"210. Recovery of arrears of tax, cess etc.-
Any arrear of cess, rate, surcharge or tax imposed or
fees levied under this Act shall be recoverable as an
arrear of public revenue under the law relating to the
recovery of arrears of public revenue for the time
being in force:
Provided that the Secretary of a Village
Panchayat may directly recover by distraint, under his
warrant, and sale of movable properties of the
defaulter subject to such rules as may be prescribed:
2026:KER:30322
CRL.MC NO. 6934 OF 2025
Provided further that, if for any reason the distraint or
a sufficient distraint of a defaulter's property is
impracticable, the Secretary may prosecute the
defaulter before a Magistrate".
8. A plain reading of the above section
unambiguously reveals that a distraint warrant has to
be issued to the defaulter to recover the arrears payable
to the Panchayat. It is only when the recovery
proceedings become futile, a criminal prosecution can
be launched.
9. The two cardinal conditions for initiating
a prosecution are:
(i) The distraint warrant should be issued against
the accused, and
(ii) The distraint warrant should be unsuccessful.
10. In the above context it is also apposite to
refer to Rules 14 and 15 of the Rules, which reads thus:
"14. Notice to be served before enforcing provisions of
distraint.-
(1) The Secretary shall, where any tax due
from any person has not been remitted on or before
the due date, serve upon such person a demand notice
2026:KER:30322
CRL.MC NO. 6934 OF 2025
requiring him to pay the tax together with notice fee of
two rupees and the cost of service of the notice if sent
by registered post, within fifteen days from the date of
service of notice, before taking the proceedings under
Section 210 of the Act.
(2) Notice under sub-rule (1) shall be signed
by the Secretary and shall contain the following
matters,-
(a) a statement regarding the period for
which the tax is imposed, and description regarding
the occupation, property or institution on which the
tax is imposed;
(b) the amount of tax, fee of demand notice
and cost of notice is sent by registered post;
(c) the date from which tax is due; and
(d) statement of the liability incurred on
account of the default in remitting money
"15. Recovery by distraint.- If the amount due on
account of any tax together with the fee of demand
notice and the cost of service of the notice is not paid
within fifteen days from the date of service of the
notice and if the person from whom the tax is due has
not shown cause to the satisfaction of the Secretary as
to why it should not be remitted, the Secretary may,
by distraint under warrant and by sale of the movable
property of the defaulter, recover the amount due on
account of the tax together with demand notice fee,
cost of service of notice, warrant fee including the
distraint fee together with such further sum that is
sufficient for a meeting the actual expenses for the
safe custody and sale of the property so distrained:
Provided that movable property described in
the proviso to Section 60 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, shall not be distrained.
(2) The warrant under sub-rule (1) shall be in Form
No.1 appended to these rules and for each such
warrant a fee of five rupees shall be levied".
11. As per Rule 14, when an amount is due
from a defaulter, a demand notice calling upon him to
pay the amount within 15 days from the date of service
2026:KER:30322
CRL.MC NO. 6934 OF 2025
of notice has to be issued to him. Rule 15 says that even
after service of notice under Rule 14, if the amount is
not paid within 15 days thereof, the Secretary of the
Panchayat may issue a distraint warrant.
12. The above statutory provisions are
incorporated in the Act and Rules to prevent
unnecessary harassment of the defaulters by the
initiating criminal prosecution proceedings.
13. In light of the statutory mandate, it was
imperative on the part of the 1st respondent to have
proceeded against the property of the petitioner before
initiating the prosecution.
14. Undisputedly, the 1st respondent has not
issued any distraint warrant or initiated coercive
proceedings as against the property of the petitioner.
Instead, the 1st respondent has straight away initiated
the criminal prosecution against the petitioner.
15. A similar view has been taken by this
2026:KER:30322
CRL.MC NO. 6934 OF 2025
Court in Secretary, Pozhuthana Grama Panchayat v.
Unni Peravan [2021(1)KLT 72].
16. It is well-established that this Court has
broad plenary powers under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, which corresponds to Section 528
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to
quash criminal proceedings. However, such inherent
power, though expansive in nature, is not unbridled or
unlimited. They are to be exercised sparingly, with
circumspection, and within the parameters delineated by
judicial precedents. One of the elementary principles to
quash a criminal proceeding is that, even if allegations
in the first information report or the complaint are taken
at their face value and accepted in their entirety, the
same will not prima facie constitute any offence or make
out a case against the accused. (Read the decisions in
State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others
[(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], Central Bureau of
2026:KER:30322
CRL.MC NO. 6934 OF 2025
Investigation v. Aryan Singh and Others [(2023) 18 SCC
399], Daxaben v. State of Gujarat and Others [(2022) 16
SCC 117] and Monica Kumar and Another v. State of
U.P. and Others [(2008) 8 SCC 781]).
17. On an overall consideration of the facts,
the materials on record and the law referred to in the
afore-cited decisions, and particularly considering the
fact that the 1st respondent has not initiated any
proceedings for recovery of the money, I am convinced
that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of
this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the
Crl.M.C, by quashing Annexure A2 complaint and all
further proceedings in S.T. No.751/2021 of the Trial
Court, as against the petitioner.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS,JUDGE
rmm/6/4/2026
2026:KER:30322
CRL.MC NO. 6934 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 6934 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE
DATED 30/10/2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT WITH BUILDING
NO.111/195 (PRESENTLY BUILDING NO.MKD
111/806).
Annexure-A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT
PREFERRED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT NUMBERED
AS S.T.NO:751/2021 PENDING ON THE FILES
OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT-I, ALATHUR.
Annexure-A3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED
03/10/2023 IN CRL.M.C.NO.822/2020 AND
CONNECTED MATTERS.
Annexure-A4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
27/07/2023 IN CRL.M.C.NO.2492/2020.
Annexure-A5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
02/03/2022 IN CRL.M.C.NO.1385/2020.
