Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 897
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
V.SRISHANANDA, J.
Shivanagouda Venkanagouda Patil – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka – Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 100074 of 2023
Decided on : 10-07-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. D.L. LADKHAN, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, SRI. VEERESH R. BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE
IMPORTANT POINT
The intention to cheat and misuse of public funds through collusion constitutes criminal misappropriation, and the substantial amount received cannot be overlooked in determining the nature of the transaction.
Headnote:
Collusion - Criminal Misappropriation - Quashing of Criminal Case
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused of receiving double payment for acquired land and not repaying the full amount, leading to a criminal case being filed against them. They sought to quash the criminal case, arguing it was a civil dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had received a substantial amount as double payment for the acquired land, failed to notice it, and only repaid a small portion of the amount. The court declined to quash the criminal case, stating that the nature of the transaction did not warrant it being treated as a simple civil dispute.
Issues: Whether the petitioners' actions constituted criminal misappropriation and if the criminal case should be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the intention to cheat the acquiring authorities and the misuse of public funds through collusion constituted criminal misappropriation. It also emphasized that the substantial amount received by the petitioners could not be overlooked, and the nature of the transaction did not warrant quashing the criminal case.
Final Decision: The petition to quash the criminal case was dismissed, and the court's observations during the order were stated not to affect the parties' rights during trial.
ORDER :
Heard Sri.D.L.Ladkhan, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:
"To pass an order quashing registration of F.I.R. and compliant by Vidyagiri Police station Dharwad, at Crime No. 251/2022 for offences punishable U/sec. 406, 409, 420 R/w Sec. 34 of IPC and all further proceedings after being registered said crime number on the file of 3rd Additional Civil Judge and CJM, Court Dharwad insofar petitioners/accused No 7, 8, and 10 are concerned."
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
3.1 In respect of the land that was acquired that of the petitioner, there was compensation paid by the concerned authorities at an earlier point of time. However, it is alleged that the employees of the acquiring authority in collusion with the petitioners herein created duplicate set of documents and whereby they laid a claim again for payment of compensation, which according to the complainant is to the tune of Rs.19 crores. Insofar as petitioners are concerned, a sum of Rs.5 crores has been credited into their account and the petitioners did not notice that it is double payment and have utilised the same.
3.2 Later on, on coming to know of the lodging of the present complaint, the petitioners said to have redeposited a sum of Rs.36 lakhs with the acquiring authority and are also ready to pay the balance amount within a reasonable point of time and therefore sought for quashing of the pending criminal case.
4. Sri.D.L.Ladkhan also contended that given the nature of allegations in the complaint, at best it can be termed as a civil dispute between the acquiring authority and the petitioners and for fault of the officials of acquiring authority in crediting of compensation amount for the second time without following necessary procedure, the petitioners cannot be held liable for the criminal action and sought for quashing of pending proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the petition grounds.
6. She further emphasises that credit of amount for the second time has taken place in the year 2022 and only Rs.36 lakhs has been repaid by the petitioners as against Rs.5 crores that has been credited to their accounts and despite granting sufficient time, they did not do so and therefore it per se amounts to criminal misappropriation.
7. She further contended that even if the entire amount is repaid, the action that attributable to the petitioners would be in the nature of temporary misappropriation which is also punishable under Section 409 of IPC and therefore sought for dismissal of the petition.
8. Supporting her contention, she has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Giansingh vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303.
9. Perused the material on record meticulously in view of the rival contentions of the parties. On such perusal, it is the contention of the petitioners that it is the officials who colluded with the petitioners in claiming the compensation amount of acquired lands for the second time.
10. In collusion, whether 'X' colludes with 'Y' or 'Y' colludes with 'X' is immaterial. Collusion is an act of common meeting of minds. The intention in the alleged collusion is to cheat the acquiring authorities which is dealing with public funds. There is an automatic entrustment of the money with the acquiring authority which is the public fund which has been admittedly misused. The compensation amount is claimed for second time and records would depict that a sum of Rs.5 crores is credited to the account of the petitioners second time for the lands which were acquired belonging to the petitioners.
11. Admittedly, the amount that is credited into the account of the petitioners is not a small amount so that the petitioners loose sight of the same in daily transaction.
12. Having come to know about the same and also filing of criminal
