- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16320 CRL.P No. 4842 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4842 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. KOTRESHA H M S/O SARANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, SECRETARY, HIREMALLANAHOLE GRAM PANCHAYAT, HIREMALLANAHOLE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 528. 2. PAMPAPATHI J.R. S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, PANCHAYAT KAMAGARI ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEER, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 528. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY JAGALUR POLICE STATION, JAGALUR, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-01. 2. D.M. PRABHUSWAMY AGE MAJOR EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYAT, JAGALUR TOWN DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 528. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16320 CRL.P No. 4842 of 2025 (BY SRI. LAKSHMAN B., HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.217/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT JAGALUR PURSUANT TO THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE IN CRIME NO.112/2011 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 34, 409, 420, 465, 471, 417, 406 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioners accused Nos.2-3 who are facing Trial for the offences punishable under Section 409, 420, 465, 471, 417 r/w Section 34 of IPC are before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3, while serving as Secretary and Public Development Officer of Hiremallanahole Grama Panchayat along with accused No.1 misused the funds allotted under the MNREGA scheme, to an extent of Rs.19,42,072/-. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent- State. 4. On the similar set of charges, the departmental enquiry was initiated by the Zilla Panchayat and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report stating that the charges against the petitioners were not proved. The Enquiry report was accepted - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16320 CRL.P No. 4842 of 2025 by the competent authority and petitioners were exonerated on merits of all the charges leveled against them. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal, (2011) 3 SCC 581, laid down the following principles: (i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously. (ii) A decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution. (iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent of each other. (iv) A finding against the accused in adjudication proceedings is not binding on criminal prosecution. (v) Adjudication by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of Cr.P.C. (vi) If exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical grounds and not on merits, criminal prosecution may continue. (vii) However, if exoneration is on merits, where the allegation is found to be unsustainable and the accused is held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts cannot continue, considering the higher standard of proof required in criminal cases. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16320 CRL.P No. 4842 of 2025 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State (NCT of Delhi) v. P.S. Rajya, (1996) 9 SCC 1, held that exoneration in departmental proceedings does not automatically lead to acquittal in a criminal case. This view was later distinguished in State v. L. Krishnamohan, and it was clarified that P.S. Rajya is not an authority for the presumption that departmental exoneration necessarily leads to acquittal in criminal trials. 7. In Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (2015) 2 SCC 189, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a decision is per incuriam when a court has acted in ignorance of a binding precedent. Consequently, the decision in State (NCT of Delhi), which did not consider Radheshyam Kejriwal, is said to be per incuriam. 8. The Full Bench of this Court in Govindanaik G. Kalaghatigi v. West Patent Press Co. Ltd. held that when there is a conflict between two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of equal bench strength, the later decision prevails. Accordingly, the judgment in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. CBI, which followed Radheshyam Kejriwal, prevails over State (NCT of Delhi). 9. In the present case, all the material witnesses were examined in the departmental enquiry, and the enquiry officer after considering the material on record submitted a report stating that the charges against the petitioners were not proved and the petitioners were exonerated on merits. Given this, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16320 CRL.P No. 4842 of 2025 abuse of the process of law. Since the petitioners have already been exonerated in the departmental proceedings, the prospect of securing a criminal conviction is bleak, as a higher standard of proof is required in a criminal trial. 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.217/2016, pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Jagalur, insofar it relates to the petitioners herein is hereby quashed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 4 Sl No.: 6