- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2353 CRL.P No. 101656 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101656 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. BASAVRAJ S/O. BABURAO JAMBAGI AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MELAVANKI VILLAGE, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591218. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINAND A.PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH YAMAKANAMARADI POLICE STATION, NOW REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT. DHARWAD-580011. 2. SRI. BHIMAPPA S/O. KAREPPA LALI AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYAT, HUKKERI, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591309. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC., SEEKING TO, QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 1823/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUKKERI BELAGAVI REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 406, 408,409 AND 420 R/W 34 OF IPC ORDER SHEET MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 2 IS CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.27 14:39:04 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2353 CRL.P No. 101656 of 2023 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner-accused No.2, who has been charge- sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that during the financial year 2019–2020, accused No.1 served as the President of Islampur Grama Panchayat, and the petitioner-accused No.2 worked as the in-charge Panchayat Development Officer (PDO). The prosecution further alleges that for the financial year 2018–2019, accused No.1 (President) and the petitioner-accused No.2 (in-charge PDO) failed to prepare an Action Plan as required under the 14th Financial Project guidelines, did not obtain approval from the Zilla Panchayat, and violated the guidelines by disbursing payments through cheques without issuing vouchers and without availing VSMS facilities. They also did not produce any documents regarding the completion of the work at the time of the audit. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations of mis-appropriation pertain only to the financial year 2018-2019, and that the petitioner-accused No.2, who served as the in-charge PDO from 9.4.2019 to 19.8.2019, had no authority to disburse payments through cheques. In the absence of any specific overt acts detailing how and in what manner the petitioner-accused No.2 was involved in the mis-appropriation of Grama Panchayat funds, the continuation of proceedings against him amounts to an - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2353 CRL.P No. 101656 of 2023 abuse of the process of law. He further argues that the allegation against the petitioner-accused No.2 concerns the discharge of his official duties and that, in the absence of the requisite sanction to prosecute—as mandated under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.—the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate lacks authority. 4. In response, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State contends that the charge-sheet material discloses that accused No.2, in connivance with accused No.1 (the President), mis-appropriated funds belonging to the Grama Panchayat by failing to produce documents evidencing payment for the completion of projects. He further asserts that the veracity of the allegations against accused No.2 should be examined at trial, not at this stage, and therefore seeks the dismissal of the petition. 5. The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered. 6. It is admitted that the petitioner-accused No.2 served as the in-charge PDO from 9.4.2019 to 19.8.2019. Section 111 of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, enumerates the functions of the Panchayat Development Officer. Accordingly, under Section 111 of the Act, the petitioner-accused No.2 did not have the authority either to prepare the annual plan or to disburse funds through cheques or to use any unauthorized means for payment toward various projects. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2353 CRL.P No. 101656 of 2023 7. In the present case, the allegation is that, without preparing the annual plan, the funds of the Grama Panchayat were utilized for payments toward various projects, and that these payments were made through cheques instead of via the prescribed portal facility. Merely because the petitioner-accused No.2 was the in-charge PDO during that period does not establish that he was involved in mis-appropriating the Grama Panchayat’s funds, particularly in the absence of any specific overt acts detailing his involvement. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2 amounts to an abuse of the process of law. 8. Moreover, the allegations of mis-appropriation against accused No.2 relate to actions taken during the discharge of his official duties. Under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., cognizance of an offence committed by a public servant can only be taken upon obtaining the requisite sanction to prosecute from the competent authority. In this case, no such sanction has been granted. Consequently, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate lacks authority. 9. In view of the foregoing, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2 would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. The criminal petition is allowed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2353 CRL.P No. 101656 of 2023 ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.NO.1823/2022, pending on the file of Court of Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Hukkeri, Belagavi, insofar it relates to petitioner- accused No.2, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 150