Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2102 (KAR)

Raju v. State Of Karnataka

2020-10-21

H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

body2020
JUDGMENT H.B.Prabhakara Sastry, J. - The respondent No.2 herein has lodged a complaint with the respondent No.1 Police Station, alleging the offence punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420 R/w. Section 34 of the IPC. 2. The summary of the case of the complainant is that; He received a letter from the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Belagavi, vide letter dated 29.08.2016, with regard to the alleged misuse of the government funds in doing certain civil works in Baad village, Hukkeri Taluk, within the Gram Panchayat limits in the year 2011-14, under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Scheme. It is further alleged that, in the implementation of the said scheme, the work alleged to have been performed was of very poor quality, as observed by the Quality Control Cell, which has resulted in the misuse of a sum of `14,83,493/-. The said letter also directed for recovery of the said amount from the concerned. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Belagavi, since has ordered for recovery of the money, the complainant in his capacity as the Executive Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Hukkeri, vide his office order dated 10.06.2015, called upon several of the officials and the contractors including the present petitioner for repayment of their share of liability in the alleged amount, together with interest thereupon. Accordingly, as per the said order of the complainant dated 10.06.2015, the present petitioner, who is a contractor, was directed to pay a sum of `2,12,045/- with interest thereupon. According to the complainant, none of the people, upon whom such an order directing them to pay the alleged amount of misappropriation, have fulfilled the same. He lodged a complaint with the police requesting them to take appropriate action. The said complaint was registered in the respondent Police Station Crime No.252/2016 for the above alleged offences. Challenging the said complaint, the petitioner has preferred this petition. 3. The respondents are being represented by their respective counsel. 4. Though this matter is listed for admission, with the consent of the counsel for both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his brief arguments submitted that, even a reading of the complaint and taking it on its face value would not make out any of the alleged offences. As such, the same deserves to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his brief arguments submitted that, even a reading of the complaint and taking it on its face value would not make out any of the alleged offences. As such, the same deserves to be quashed. He further submits that, in similar circumstance, a criminal proceeding against other co-accused has been quashed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.100709/2017 & connected matters disposed of on 11.09.2017. 6. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent in his argument submitted that, the alleged misappropriation of the fund under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Scheme and poor quality of civil works has been thoroughly examined and verified and it is after thorough satisfaction by the competent officials up to the level of the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Panchayat, the order for recovery of the amount has been passed by the complainant. As such, the amount which has been paid for the civil works since has been received by them without discharging the quality work, the same has amounted in cheating of the Government machinery and as such, the complaint sustains. 7. Learned HCGP for respondent No.1 also joins the learned counsel for respondent No.2 in supporting the FIR. 8. A perusal of the complaint at this stage and prima facie would go to show that, admittedly, the source of information to the complainant is the alleged letter said to have been issued by the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Panchayat, Belagavi. Therefore, the complainant has no first hand information either about the alleged poor quality in the work or with respect to the alleged misappropriation of the amount by showing the poor quality of work towards the said amount. The complaint though runs into more than a page and gives several of the details about the letter correspondence, but nowhere mentions as to what exactly was the allegation that was made against the present petitioner. On the other hand, the very complaint on its face value would go to show that, the present petitioner was a contractor to whom certain civil works were entrusted as an outsource contractor. It appears that he has submitted the bills and received some amount after getting passed those bills. It is not the allegation in the complaint that, those bills were bogus or that without doing any work false bills were submitted. It appears that he has submitted the bills and received some amount after getting passed those bills. It is not the allegation in the complaint that, those bills were bogus or that without doing any work false bills were submitted. On the other hand, what is alleged is the poor quality of work said to have been done by the various people including the present petitioner. 9. If that were to be the case, when a contract is said to have been performed fully and if there is any allegation or complaint about any breach of the terms of the contract, or alleged poor quality of the work and in the absence of any fraudulent intention to do such type of work, the remedy available to the other side would be to institute a civil litigation for the necessary reliefs, but not a criminal case. A thorough reading of the complaint nowhere whispers that the petitioner at any moment had any ill-motive or ill-intention or a fraudulent intention to make money either by creating false documents or by illegally drawing any amount with some ulterior motive. 10. Therefore, when the very complaint is bereft of any details required to be mentioned to attract the offences under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420 R/w. Section 34 of the IPC, mere registration of the complaint for the alleged offences would not serve the purpose. On the other hand, in the guise of investigation, the petitioner may be put to inconvenience or harassment by the Investigating Agency, though there is no allegation of any criminal act against him in the complaint. 11. Therefore, I am of the view that the investigation, if proceeded as against the present petitioner, would be an abuse of process of law, as such, it is a fit case where the Court can exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Petition is allowed. The FIR registered by the Sankeshwar Police Station in Crime No.252/2016 dated 15.09.2016 for the offences under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420 R/w. Section 34 of the IPC is quashed, however, confining it to the present petitioner (accused No.4).