- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6489 CRL.P No. 102552 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No.102554 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102552 OF 2024 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102554 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)-) IN CRL. P NO.102552/2024 BETWEEN: ABDULRAJAK MANIYAR S/O. HAYAT SAHEB AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS PDO, HAROBELAWADI, DHARWAD TALUK DHARWAD, R/O. NO.8, CHINTAMANI PLOT, GANDHINAGAR, KALGHATAGI, DHARWAD-581204. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KRISHNA S. VYAS, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY KUNDGAL POLICE STATION REPT. BY HIGH COURT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR DHARWAD-580011. 2. MALLIKARJUN S/O. SHANKRAPPA METI, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER, TALUK PANCHAYATH KUNDGAI TALUK, DHARWAD DIST-581113. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; SRI. RAJENDRASWAMI C. HOSAMATH, ADV. FOR R2) Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6489 CRL.P No. 102552 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No.102554 of 2024 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE KUNDGOL P.S. CRIME NO.100/2018, CHARE-SHEET AND PROCEEDINGS IN C.C NO.268/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 R/W 34 OF IPC IN SO FOR PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 CONCERN, PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT KUNDGOL VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B. IN CRL. P NO.102554/2024 BETWEEN: ABDULRAJAK MANIYAR, S/O HAYAT SAHEB AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS PDO, HAROBELAWADI, DAHRWAD TALUK, DHARWAD, R/O. NO. 8, CHINTAMANI PLOT, GANDHINAGAR, KALAGHATAGI, DHARWAD - 581204. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KRISHNA S. VYAS, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY KUNDGAL POLICE STATION, REP. BY HIGH COURT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DAHRWAD-580011. 2. MALLIKARJUN S/O. SHANKRAPPA METI, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER, TALUK PANCHAYATH, KUNDAGAI TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT-581113. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; SRI. RAJENDRASWAMI C. HOSAMATH, ADV. FOR R2) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6489 CRL.P No. 102552 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No.102554 of 2024 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE KUNDGOL P.S. CRIME NO.100/2018, CHARE-SHEET AND PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.267/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 R/W 34 OF IPC IN SOFOR PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 CONCERN, PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT KUNDGOL VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner-accused No.2 have approached this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him for the offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 R/w. Section 34 of IPC in CC No.267 of 2024 and CC No.268 of 2024 pending on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundgol. 2. Heard Sri. Krishna S Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6489 CRL.P No. 102552 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No.102554 of 2024 Government Advocate for respondent No.1, Sri.Rajendraswami C Hosmath, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsels for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner is liable to be quashed?” My answer to the above point is in the ‘affirmative’ for the following: REASONS 4. Since both these criminal proceedings were initiated against this petitioner by arraying him as accused No.2 for the offence under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 R/w. section 34 of IPC, alleging criminal breach of trust, criminal misappropriation, cheating, forgery and concoction of documents, and in both cases, the Additional Registrar, Karnataka - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6489 CRL.P No. 102552 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No.102554 of 2024 Lokayukta has held an enquiry and submitted a common report, I deem it appropriate to dispose of these petitions under common order. 5. Initially, a complaint came to be filed with Lokayukta Police by one Shekappa Ramappa Mareppanavar against accused Nos. 1 to 3 alleging that accused No.1 being the Chairman of the Gram Panchayat, accused No.2 being the Panchayat Development Officer (PDO) and accused No.3 being the Assistant Agriculture Officer have withdrawn an amount of ₹62,930/- from the panchayat fund for the purpose of construction of 14 lavatories, but have not constructed the same, and misappropriated the amount. Similarly, it is the allegation against the accused that, they have withdrawn a sum of ₹2,40,436/- for the purpose of construction of SDS protection wall and, without constructing such protection wall, misappropriated the amount and thereby committed the offence. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6489 CRL.P No. 102552 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No.102554 of 2024 6. The Karnataka Upa Lokayuktha recommended for filing a criminal complaint. Accordingly, respondent No.2 – the Executive Officer filed the first information with Kundagol police against accused Nos.1 to 3 and accordingly, FIR in Crime No.100 of 2018 came to be registered. After investigation, 3 different charge sheets came to be filed. Now, it is stated that, in respect of these two criminal cases, C.C.No.267 of 2024 and C.C. No.268 of 2024 are pending consideration before the Trial Court. 7. The petitioner in these cases had approached this Court by filing similar Criminal Petition Nos.101587 of 2020, 101588 of 2020 and 101589 of 2020 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. However, these petitions were withdrawn with liberty to move necessary application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C before the Trial Court. 8. It is the contention of the petitioner in both these cases that subsequent to withdrawal of the earlier petitions, the Additional Registrar, Karnataka Lokayukta held detailed enquiry and submitted his report dated - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6489 CRL.P No. 102552 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No.102554 of 2024 29.08.2023, produced as per Annexure-D, exonerating the petitioner herein from all the charges of concoction of documents, misappropriation, criminal breach of trust etc. The said report - Annexure-D is accepted by the Government by order dated 01.12.2023. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Radheshyama Kejriwal V/s. State of West Bengal and another 1 to content that, the standard of proof required in the criminal proceedings is higher than that required before the adjudicating authority. In the present case, the accused is exonerated before the adjudicating authority. Thus, the criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to be proceeded with where higher degree of proof is required. 10. He also places reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari, V/s. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and 1 (2011) 3 SCC 581 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6489 CRL.P No. 102552 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No.102554 of 2024 another 2 where the Hon’ble Apex Court referring to it’s earlier decision in Radheshyama (supra) held that the yardstick to be applied would be to check whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceedings for prosecution is identical and, whether exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. It is also held that, in case, it is found on merits that, there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concerned will be an abuse of process of law. 11. Placing reliance on these decisions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings. 12. On going through the decisions referred to above, the trite law is that, the standard of proof required in a criminal proceedings is much higher than that is required before the adjudicating authority. When the adjudicating authority, on consideration of the materials 2 (2020) 9 SCC 636 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6489 CRL.P No. 102552 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No.102554 of 2024 on record in an enquiry held in accordance with law, exonerates the delinquent official, who is the accused in the criminal proceedings, continuation of the criminal proceedings amount to abuse of process of law. 13. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the Additional Registrar of Karnataka Lokayukta held an enquiry against the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.2. The charges framed by the adjudicating authority and the allegation against the petitioner as per the charge sheet are one and the same i.e., misappropriation of ₹62,930/- withdrawn for construction of 14 lavatories without constructing the same, and withdrawal of ₹2,40,436/- for construction of SDS protection wall and misappropriating the same without constructing the wall. A specific finding was recorded by the adjudicating authority that the petitioner, who was working as PDO had taken charge only on 11/06/2013, and the amount of ₹62,930/- was withdrawn and paid to the police on 05/04/2013, i.e., much before petitioner took charge of his office as PDO. It is also the finding of the adjudicating authority that SDS - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6489 CRL.P No. 102552 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No.102554 of 2024 protection wall was in fact constructed, and with regard to the same, a sum of ₹2,40,436/- was withdrawn, and there was no misappropriation. When such categorical finding was recorded by the adjudicating authority, who is none other than the Additional Registrar of Karnataka Lokayukta, I do not find any reason to continue the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, when there are similar allegations based on similar set of documents. 14. Learned Additional Government Advocate contended that none of the charge sheet witnesses have been examined before the adjudicating authority, and the Investigating Officer has cited as many as 10 witnesses. Under such circumstances, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. Even though, the Investigating Officer has cited as many as 10 witnesses in the charge sheet, none of these witnesses would speak specifically about commission of the offence by this petitioner. CW.1 is the informant, who lodged the first information against accused Nos.1 to 3 on the basis of the recommendation made by the Karnataka Lokayukta. CWs.2 and 3 are the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6489 CRL.P No. 102552 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No.102554 of 2024 mahazar witnesses, who stated regarding construction of SDS protection wall. CWs.4 and 5 have given service particulars regarding the accused. CWs.6 to 8 speak about construction of SDS protection wall. CW.9 is the Investigating Officer, who registered the FIR and conducted investigation and filed charge sheet. 15. Even if, all the prosecution witnesses were to support the case of the prosecution, the charge against the present petitioner cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. When adjudicating authority in his report – Annexure-D specifically states that the petitioner had taken charge of office only on 11/06/2013, while withdrawal of the amount of ₹62,930/- was done much before i.e., on 05/04/2013, no amount of evidence could help the prosecution to prove the guilt of the petitioner. Similarly with regard to misappropriation of ₹2,40,436/-, the materials on record disclose that SDS protection wall for which the amount was withdrawn was already constructed and it is the duty of accused No.2 to visit the spot, inspect the construction, measure the same and - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6489 CRL.P No. 102552 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No.102554 of 2024 submits his report. Under such circumstances, I do not find any justification for continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner in these petitions and the same is nothing but misuse and abuse of process of Court. Hence, the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I answer the above points in the affirmative. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) Criminal Petitions are allowed. ii) Criminal Proceedings initiated against the petitioner in CC No.267 of 2024 and CC No.268 of 2024 pending on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundgol are quashed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE VB CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16