[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
General Manager, Gtl Infrastructure ... vs The Secretary on 9 February, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2026:KER:11595
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 20TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 834 OF 2025
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
GENERAL MANAGER, GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,
66/4514, PRABHU TOWER, 2ND FLOOR,OPP.CHENNAI
SILKS, M.G. ROAD NORTH PALLIPADI, ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, PIN -
682035
BY ADV SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P).
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
1 THE SECRETARY,
PAYAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MADATHIL,
IRITTY, KANNUR, PIN - 670703
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV SRI.CIBI THOMAS
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR-SMT.SEETHA S
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl. M.C. No. 834 of 2025 -:2:
2026:KER:11595
Dated this the 9th day of February, 2026
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in S.T. No.
1377/2022 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate, Mattannur ('Trial Court', for short),
which has been registered on the basis of a private
complaint filed by the first respondent alleging the
commission of an offence punishable under Section 210
of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act ('Act', for brevity) read
with Rule 27 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Taxation, Levy
and Appeal) Rules ('Rules', in short).
2. The gist of the allegation in Annexure A2
complaint is that; the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.
43,349/- to the first respondent towards arrears of tax for
the period from 2019-2020 to 2021-2022.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the first
respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that, even if the allegations in Annexure A2 private
Crl. M.C. No. 834 of 2025 -:3:
2026:KER:11595
complaint are taken on their face value, the same would
not attract the offence alleged against the petitioner. He
relies on the order passed by this Court in Crl.M.C.
No.6229/2025, wherein this Court has held that, unless
the statutory remedies available to the first respondent
under Section 210 of the Act are exhausted, a
prosecution cannot be launched. It was without resorting
to the above course for recovery of the alleged arrears as
contemplated under Section 210 of the Act, that the
prosecution has been launched, which is premature and
unsustainable in law. Therefore, the petitioner may be
given the benefit of the law laid down in Crl.M.C.
No.6229/2025, and the entire proceedings may be
quashed.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the first
respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor oppose the
Crl.M.C. They submit that there is no legal bar for the
first respondent to independently prosecute the
complaint against the petitioner. This Court may not
embark upon a mini trial and terminate the prosecution
Crl. M.C. No. 834 of 2025 -:4:
2026:KER:11595
due to the alternative statutory remedy. 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 first 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:
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
Crl. M.C. No. 834 of 2025 -:5:
2026:KER:11595
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
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
Crl. M.C. No. 834 of 2025 -:6:
2026:KER:11595
"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 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.
Crl. M.C. No. 834 of 2025 -:7:
2026:KER:11595
13. In light of the statutory mandate, it was
imperative on the part of the first respondent to have
proceeded against the property of the petitioner before
initiating the prosecution.
14. Undisputedly, the first respondent has not
issued any distraint warrant or initiated coercive
proceedings as against the property of the petitioner.
Instead, the first respondent has straight away initiated
the criminal prosecution against the petitioner.
15. A similar view has been taken by this Court
in Secretary, Pozhuthana Grama Panchayat v. T.K.
Unni Peravan & Anr. [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
Crl. M.C. No. 834 of 2025 -:8:
2026:KER:11595
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 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 first 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.
Crl. M.C. No. 834 of 2025 -:9:
2026:KER:11595
In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the
Crl.M.C, by quashing Annexure A2 complaint and all
further proceedings in S.T. No. 1377/2022 of the Trial
Court, as against the petitioner.
Sd/-
mtk C.S.DIAS,JUDGE
Crl. M.C. No. 834 of 2025 -:10:
2026:KER:11595
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 834 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED
27/05/2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
PANCHAYAT.
Annexure-A2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT NUMBERED AS S.T.
NO:1377/2022 ALONG WITH SUMMONS PENDING
ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, MATTANNUR.
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.MC NO.2492/2020.
Annexure-A5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
02/03/2022 IN CRL.M.C.NO.1385/2020.
