- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39338 CRL.P No. 1344 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1344 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SMT SUNITHA B W/O LATE DEVARAJU B N AGED 56 YEARS R/AT NO.14/8, PWD QUARTERS BESIDE POST OFFICE, HOLENARASIPURA HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DIST - 573 211 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANNA D P, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARANTAKA BY HOLENARSIPURA TOWN POLICE STATION HOLENARSIPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560001 2. SRI RENU KUMAR S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER AGED MAJOR, TAHASILDAR TALUK OFFICE, HOLENARSIPURA HASSAN DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2) Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39338 CRL.P No. 1344 of 2023 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST HIM IN C.C.NO.174/2019 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HOLENARASIPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 464, 466, 468, 471, 474, 477A OF IPC IN CR.NO.142/2016 OF 1ST RESPONDENT HOLENARSIPURA TOWN POLICE, IN RESPECT TO PETITIONER IS CONCERN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.4 has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against her in C.C.No.174/2019 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC., Holenarasipura, Hassan District, for the offences punishable under Sections 464, 466, 468, 471, 474, 477-A of IPC (arising out of Cr.No.142/2016 of Holenarasipura Town PS). 2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court. 3. In support of the petition, accused No.4 has contended that at the relevant point of time, accused No.4 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39338 CRL.P No. 1344 of 2023 was working as FDA in the office of Tahsildar, Holenarasipura, Hassan District. However, respondent No.1 Police have not obtained sanction to prosecute her, as required under Section 197 Cr.P.C and as such petition is liable to be quashed. The trial Court has also taken cognizance without due application of mind. The allegations made in the complaint does not attract the offences under Sections 464, 466, 468, 471, 474, 477-A of IPC. The alleged incident is of the year 2004-2005 and the report was submitted during 2011. However, complaint came to be filed during 2016. Therefore, on account of inordinate delay, proceedings are liable to be quashed. Complaint was filed against accused Nos.1 and 2 only and enquiry was conducted against accused No.4 and another by the Upa- lokayukta. Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to double jeopardy. Accused No.4 is already retired and for no fault of her, she is suffering and hence, the petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39338 CRL.P No. 1344 of 2023 4. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following decisions: i) Md.Ibrahim and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (Md.Ibrahim)1 ii) D.Devaraja Vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain (D.Devaraja)2 iii) A Srinivasulu Vs. The State Rep by the Inspector of Police (A.Srinivasulu)3 iv) Suneeti Toteja Vs. State of U.P and Anr. (Suneeti Toteja)4 5. On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1/State and the learned counsel representing respondent No.2/complainant would submit that at the relevant point of time accused No.1 Kadaiah, was working as Tahsildar, accused No.2 Altaf Hussain as Revenue Inspector and accused No.4 Sunitha was working as FDA, in the office of Tahsildar, Holenarasipura and accused No.3 Lingaraju as Surveyor Taluk office, Arakalgud. Sy.No.10/2 of Hangere, 1 Crl.A.No.1695/2009 [SLP(Crl)No.6211/2007 Dt:04.09.2009 2 AIR 2020 SC 3292 3 2023 Livelaw (SC) 485 4 SLP(Crl)No.6898/2023 Dt:25.02.2025 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39338 CRL.P No. 1344 of 2023 Hosur, Holenarasipura Taluk, Hassan District was a Government land. One Krishnaswamy. S, Holenarasipura Taluk, Hassan District filed a complaint against accused No.4 Sunitha, alleging that the accused persons collected upset price from Rs.271/- prices on 31.12.2007 and credited it to the Treasury. During December 2007, they had issued Saguvali chits to 12 persons. They have managed to get proceedings dated 13.01.2005 to 16.10.2005 through 'Akrama Sakrama' Samithi in respect of 290 persons, even though they have not submitted Form No.53. They have not maintained the records as per Rules. 6. This complaint was referred to the Lokayuktha for enquiry against accused Nos.3 Lingaraju and accused No.4 Sunitha. It was referred to Additional Registrar (Enquiry-1). After conducting detailed enquiry, a report was submitted that the allegations made against them are partly established. Based on the said report, on the directions of the Deputy Commissioner, Tahsildar filed complaint against accused Nos.1 to 4. The investigation and charge sheet - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39338 CRL.P No. 1344 of 2023 reveal that accused Nos.1 to 4 have concocted illegal documents as though land has been granted and used them as genuine. There is prima facie material to proceed against all the accused persons and pray to dismiss the petition. 7. In support of her arguments, learned High Court Government Pleader has relied upon the following decisions: i) Choudhury Parveen Sultana Vs. State of West Bengal and Anr.(Choudhury Parveen Sultana)5 ii) Inspector of Police and Anr. Vs. Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam and Anr. (Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam)6 iii) Om Prakash Yadav Vs. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay and Ors.(Om Prakash Yadav)7 8. Heard arguments and perused the record. 9. It is not in dispute that land in Sy.No.10/2 of Hangere, Hosur Village, Holenarasipura Taluk, Hassan District is a Government land reserved for Government 5 2023 Livelaw (SC) 485 6 (2015) 13 SCC 87 7 Crl.A.No.5267-5268/2024: 2024 INSC 979 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39338 CRL.P No. 1344 of 2023 purposes. It is also not in dispute that at the relevant point of time accused No.1 Kadaiah was working as Tahsildar and accused No.2 Altaf Hussain as Revenue Inspector and accused No.4 Sunitha was working as FDA in the office of Tahsildar, Holenarasipura and accused No.3 Lingaraju as Surveyor Taluk office, Arakalgud. One Krishna Swamy S, filed a complaint alleging that the accused persons have collected upset price on 31.12.2007 and credited it to the treasury and they have issued Saguvali Chits to 12 persons and they have also managed to get proceeding dated 13.01.2005 to 16.10.2005 passed through Akrama Sakrama Samithi in respect of 290 person, even though they have not submitted Form No.53. The said complaint was referred to Lokayukta for enquiry against accused Nos.3 and 4 and after holding enquiry, the Lokayukta has given report stating that accused Nos.1 to 4 have concocted documents as though the land is granted and used such concocted documents as genuine. On this basis, the Tahsildar has filed the complaint. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39338 CRL.P No. 1344 of 2023 10. There is prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that sanction is not secured against her. Concocting documents was not part of her duty so as to hold that issue of sanction is necessary. In fact in Choudhury Parveen Sultana, referred to supra it was held that deeds and acts attributed to public servant not being part of his official duties and therefore, the accused is disentitled for protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C. For applying bar of Section 197 Cr.P.C, each case has to be considered in its own fact situation in order to arrive at a finding as to whether protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C could be given to the public servant. It was not part of duties of the accused-investigating officer to threaten the complainant or her husband to withdraw the complaint. The fact situation in the complaint was not such to bring it within the ambit of Section 197 Cr.P.C and therefore, the High Court erred in quashing the complaint. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39338 CRL.P No. 1344 of 2023 11. Similarly in Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam, referred to supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that public servants are in fact being treated as a special category under Section 197 Cr.P.C, to protect them from malicious or vexatious prosecution. Such protection from harassment is given in public interest. The same cannot be treated as a shield to protect the corrupt officials. It was further held that official duty is not to fabricate records or permit evasion of payment of duty and cause loss to the revenue. The Magistrate has correctly taken the view that, if at all the said view of sanction is to be considered, it could be done at the stage of trial only. 12. At para No.74 of the judgment in Om Prakash Yadav, referred to supra, the legal proposition emerged from the discussions of the case laws, referred in the said judgment are noted as under: (i) There might arise situations where the complaint or the police report may not disclose that the act constituting the offence was done or purported to be done in the discharge of official duty. However, the facts subsequently coming to light may establish the necessity for sanction. Therefore, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39338 CRL.P No. 1344 of 2023 the question whether sanction is required or not is one that may arise at any stage of the proceeding and it may reveal itself in the course of the progress of the case. (ii) There may also be certain cases where it may not be possible to effectively decide the question of sanction without giving an opportunity to the defence to establish that what the public servant did, he did in the discharge of official duty. Therefore, it would be open to the accused to place the necessary materials on record during the trial to indicate the nature of his duty and to show that the acts complained of were so interrelated to his duty in order to obtain protection under Section 197 CrPC. (iii) While deciding the issue of sanction, it is not necessary for the Court to confine itself to the allegations made in the complaint. It can take into account all the material on record available at the time when such a question is raised and falls for the consideration of the Court. (iv) Courts must avoid the premature staying or quashing of criminal trials at the preliminary stage since such a measure may cause great damage to the evidence that may have to be adduced before the appropriate trial court." 13. In the light of the ratio in the above decisions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the criminal proceedings against accused No.4 is not liable to be quashed at this stage for want of sanction. At the stage of trial, the trial Court may examine this aspect and if - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39338 CRL.P No. 1344 of 2023 sanction is necessary, the prosecution may secure the same. 14. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, the decisions relied upon by accused No.4 are not applicable to the case on hand. 15. In the light of the above discussions, this Court is at the considered opinion that the petition filed by the accused is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the following: ORDER (i) Petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.4 under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby rejected. (ii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court through email. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29