- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27288 CRL.P No. 9817 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9817 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI M K SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE KARIBASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS THE THEN CHIEF OFFICER IN TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BIDADI RAMANAGARA DISTRICT OCC: NOW WORKING AS CHIEF OFFICER TOWN PANCHAYATH MACHHE BELAGAVI TALUK AND DISTRICT R/AT NO. GANAPATHI GALLI MACHHE TOWN, BELAGAVI TALUK BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590014 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAVEENKUMAR K S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE RAMANAGARA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU POLICE Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27288 CRL.P No. 9817 of 2022 RAMANAGARA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 3. SRI. P. SAMPATH S/O LATE L. PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OCC CONTRACTOR R/AT ABBANAKUPPE, WARD NO.19, BIDADI POST AND HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562109 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2; R3 SERVED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2020 PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT RAMANAGARA IN SPL.C.NO.103/2020 THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCES P/U/S.13(1)(C) R/W SEC.13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT AND SEC.201 OF IPC AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS THEREON IN AS FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PRESENT PETITIONER HEREIN WHO IS ACCUSED NO.1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27288 CRL.P No. 9817 of 2022 ORAL ORDER Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.1 has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash the order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagar in Spl.C.No.103/2020 taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 201 IPC and Sections 13(1)(c), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act ('PC Act' for short) and consequently, quash the entire proceedings initiated against him. 2. In support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that the impugned registration of criminal case and consequently, the entire proceedings pending thereon are contrary to law, facts and material placed on record and as such liable to be set aside. Petitioner has not committed the alleged offences and as such complaint itself is not tenable. The impugned order taking cognizance is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27288 CRL.P No. 9817 of 2022 illegal and without application of judicious mind. No reasons are assigned in support of the order. 2.1 Under the provisions of Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 ('KTPP Act, 1999' for short), there must be fund with the Municipal Council for calling tenders. Since Municipal Council, Bidadi, is newly upgraded in the year 2015-16 and there was no initial fund with the Municipal Council and as such question of calling for tender without initial fund does not arise. There were no elected representatives and administrators. The petitioner being the Chief Officer of Municipal Council was required to discharge the duties as per the instructions of local MLA and Administrator. 2.2 Since the material to be purchased were for an amount less than Rs.1 lakh, it is permissible under the KTPP Act, 1999 and GO.No.DE.01.n¹E/2012, Bengaluru. Therefore, the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27288 CRL.P No. 9817 of 2022 Since there was urgent need for installation of street lights, they were purchased and utilized. In the audit report for the year 2015-16 of Town Municipal Council, Bidadi, there was no allegations of misappropriation. There was also no technical Section, including the Junior Engineers to call for the tenders. On the directions of the local MLA and administrator, the petitioner has called for quotations within the limit of Rs.1 lakh as and when required. Therefore, there is no illegality committed by the petitioner. Continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and hence, the petition. 3. On the other hand learned Special Public Prosecutor representing the respondent No.1 Lokayukta would submit that at the relevant point of time, petitioner/accused No.1 M.K.Shivakumar was working as Incharge Chief Officer and accused No.2 Smt.M.Savithri was working as Second Divison Assistant and case worker - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27288 CRL.P No. 9817 of 2022 of Accounts Section in Bidadi Municipal Council, Ramanagar Taluk. Based on the complaint filed by one Sampath, a contractor, case in Cr.No.9/2017 was registered and after investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 and 2. 3.1 The charge sheet reveal that during the proceedings dated 03.10.2015, order was passed by CW-3 Dr.Rajendra Prasad to call for tender within limit of Rs.1 lakh only once as an exception as per GO.No.DE.01.n¹E/2012, Bengaluru dated 21.06.2012, for the purchase of street lights and accessories, motor for supplying water and accessories. However, accused No.1 exceeding his powers and in order to prevent calling for tender as per the provisions of KTPP Act, 1999, purchased the said material worth Rs.21,59,970/- by dividing it into 24 quotations, so that it would be less than Rs.1 lakh. 3.2 Similarly, during the year 2016-17, accused No.1 exceeding his powers and in order to prevent calling for - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27288 CRL.P No. 9817 of 2022 tender as per the provisions of KTPP Act, 1999, purchased the electrical material such as street lights, tube lights, etc., worth Rs.19,65,020/- by dividing it into 22 quotations, so that it would be less than Rs.1 lakh and in this connection, the payment was stopped on the objections raised by Members of the Municipality and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 13(1) (c) and 13(2) of PC. Act. Act. 3.3 The allegations against accused No.2 is that despite knowing that act of accused No.1 in making purchase of the material worth Rs.21,59,970/- and Rs.19,65,020/- by violating the provisions of KTPP Act, 1999, she has colluded with him and thereby enabled misappropriation of the said sum. Further, as the payment towards the purchase dated 20.04.2016 and 25.04.2016 from Vijayashree Enterprises, Doddaballapura was not made, accused Nos.1 and 2 have returned some of the articles purchased to the supplier and failed to make entry in the stock register and on the other hand maintained a - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27288 CRL.P No. 9817 of 2022 separate stock register and later tried to destroy the same and thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 201 IPC. The detailed investigation and the material collected through the charge sheet clearly make out a prima facie case. Consequently, petition is liable to be dismissed and pray to dismiss the petition. 4. Heard arguments and perused the record. 5. It is not in dispute that at the relevant point of time, accused No.1 M.K.Shivakumar was the Incharge Chief Officer and accused No.2 Smt.Savithri was the Second Division Assistant and case worker of Account Section in Bidadi Municipal Council, Ramanagar Taluk. The specific allegations against them are that even though on 03.10.2015, as per GO.No.DE.01.n¹E/2012 dated 21.06.2012, a order was passed for purchasing street lights and accessories below Rs.1 lakh for one time and as an exception to Section 5 of KTPP Act, misusing the same the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27288 CRL.P No. 9817 of 2022 accused persons have purchased products worth Rs.21,59,970/- from Vijayashree Entrerprises by dividing the said amount into 24 quotations. Similarly for the year 2016-17 also, they have made purchase of electrical bulbs and other accessories for a total sum of Rs.19,65,020/- by dividing the same into 22 quotations so that each quotation shall be less than Rs.1 lakh to bring it under exception of Section 4 of KTPP Act, whereas in fact these purchasing were exceeding Rs.1 lakh and as per Section 5, it was mandatory for inviting tenders for supply of the same and thereby committed the offences punishable under Section. 6. After conducting detailed investigation, the concerned police have filed charge sheet against the petitioners. There is prima facie material to proceed against the petitioners. Even though during the course of cross- examination before the Enquiry Officer, in the disciplinary proceedings, the auditor has stated that each bill was below the limit of Rs.1 lakh, it is a fact that in order to attract the exception of Section 5 of the KTPP Act, they - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27288 CRL.P No. 9817 of 2022 have purposely divided the quotation to see that they are below Rs.1 lakh. It is an intelligent way of overcoming the mandate of Section 5 of the KTPP Act. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that each quotation was below the limit of Rs.1 lakh cannot be accepted. There is also allegation of accused not taking the material to stock register and making entry in separate register and when the elected members of the Municipality raised objections and refused to make payment, accused returned some of the material and tried to destroy the separate register. It is relevant to note that in the domestic enquiry, both accused are held guilty and imposed punishment. 7. The allegations made in the charge sheet are required to be established by the prosecution in a full fledged trial and it is not a case for quashing the criminal proceedings. In the result petition fails and accordingly, the following: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27288 CRL.P No. 9817 of 2022 ORDER (i) Petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 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 e-mail. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50