- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8589 CRL.P No. 102549 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102549 OF 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 - 581 204. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KRISHNA .S. VYAS, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY KUNDGAL POLICE STATION REPT. BY HIGH COURT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR DHARWAD - 580 011 2. MALLIKARJUN S/O. SHANKRAPPA METI AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER, TALUK PANCHAYATH, KUNDGAI TALUK, DHARWAD DIST - 581 113. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DAYANAND SANGRESHI, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. ABHINANDHAN HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJENDRASWAMI .C. HOSAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8589 CRL.P No. 102549 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.957/2023 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 SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT KUNDGOL VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, 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 has 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.957 of 2023 pending on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundgol. 2. Heard Sri. Krishna S. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Dayanand Sangreshi, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and Sri. Abhinandhan Hiremath, learned counsel for Sri. Rajendraswami C. Hosamath, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8589 CRL.P No. 102549 of 2024 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?” My answer to the above point is in the ‘affirmative’ for the following: REASONS 4. 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8589 CRL.P No. 102549 of 2024 ₹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 offences as stated above. 5. 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 this petition, C.C.No.957 of 2023 is pending consideration before the Trial Court. 6. It is the contention of the petitioner that subsequent to withdrawal of the earlier petition, the Additional Registrar, Karnataka Lokayukta held detailed enquiry and submitted his report dated 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8589 CRL.P No. 102549 of 2024 by the Government by order dated 01.12.2023. 7. 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 another1 to contend that, the standard of proof required in the criminal proceedings is higher than that is 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. 8. He also places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari, V/s. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and another2 where the Hon’ble Apex Court referring to it’s earlier decision in Radheshyama (supra) and held that the yardstick to be applied would be to check whether the 1 (2011) 3 SCC 581 2 (2020) 9 SCC 636 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8589 CRL.P No. 102549 of 2024 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. Placing reliance on these decisions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings. 9. 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 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. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8589 CRL.P No. 102549 of 2024 10. The allegation against the petitioner and the co- accused as per the charge sheet is about misappropriation of an amount of Rs.80,000/- by issuing work order to the relatives of the Panchayat members and even though no work was undertaken, issued four cheques for Rs.20,000/- each and thereby committed the criminal breach of trust and cheating. The adjudicating authority has recorded a specific finding that the petitioner being the Panchayat Development Officer had taken charge only on 11.06.2013 and the offence in question was committed much before he assuming the charge and that the Audit Report also does not refer to the commission of the offence by the petitioner. When such categorical finding was recorded by the adjudicating authority, who is none other than the Additional Registrar, 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. 11. Learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 fairly concede that similar charge sheet filed against the petitioner and the Co-accused came to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8589 CRL.P No. 102549 of 2024 be quashed in Crl.P.No.102552 of 2024 connected with Crl.P.No.102554 of 2024 vide order dated 16.04.2025. The respondents could not allege as to when the work order was issued and when the cheques in question were issued to the relatives of the petitioner herein. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but misuse and abuse of process of Court. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'affirmative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) Criminal Proceedings initiated against the petitioner in CC No.957 of 2023 pending on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundagol, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:VS List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1