Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 14850
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
V SRISHANANDA, J
SYED SHAKIR RAZA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201663 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI RAVI B. PATIL
For the Respondents: SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, SRI K. M. GHATE
Liability for misappropriation requires direct involvement and responsibility, which the petitioner lacked, leading to quashing of charges.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, Sections 406 and 409 - Criminal Procedure Code, Section 482 - Quashing of charge sheet - Petition filed by accused seeking to quash pending criminal proceedings on grounds of being not responsible for alleged misappropriation - Court finds the petitioner was not a signatory to essential project documents and had no control over the funds post-project commencement - Continuation of proceedings viewed as abuse of process of law. (Paras 17, 18)
(B) Criminal allegations - Necessity of evidence for establishing responsibility in misappropriation cases - The petitioner, not being a signatory or having control over the funds, cannot be held guilty. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
Accused No.4 petitioned under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a charge sheet filed against him for alleged misappropriation connected to a public works project.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner was an abuse of judicial process due to lack of evidence linking him to the alleged crime.
Issues: Whether the petitioner can be held responsible for the alleged misappropriation despite not being involved in the project execution or fund disbursement.
Ratio Decidendi: It was held that mere employment during the project's early stages does not entail liability without direct involvement and action taken during the pertinent period.
Result: Criminal petition allowed, proceedings against the petitioner quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the criminal charges and context of the public works project. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. arguments regarding the petitioner's limited involvement and the need for dismissal of charges. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. court's observation on lack of evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged misappropriation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. decision to quash proceedings based on abuse of legal process. (Para 17) |
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)
Heard Sri Ravi B. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri K.M.
Ghate, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This petition is filed by accused No.4 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., with the following prayer:
“WHEREFORE, the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass the following order:
A) Quash the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.657/2023 arising out of Crime No.26/2017 registered by the 1st Respondent Police under the provisions of Sec. 406 and 409 of Indian Penal Code , pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Aurad-B, Dist. Bidar, insofar as against the Petitioner is concerned, in the interest of justice.
B) Pass any such Order/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice and equity.”
3. Respondent No.2, being the Executive Engineer of Government of Karnataka lodged a complaint with Kushnoor Police Station, Bidar alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 409 of Indian Penal Code on 04.03.3017, which was registered in Crime No.26/2017 and after thorough investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed.
4. Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that in respect of the water project under ‘Jala Nirmala Project’, in respect of Sangam village, Aurad Taluk, Bidar District, there was a project of constructing a over head water tank and the project was based on the scheme report.
5. As per the Jala Nirmala Project, a tender was floated and tender amount was in a sum of Rs.15,55,256/-. As per the agreement for completion of the project, the value of the project was fixed in a sum of Rs.16,32,241/-. The project was commenced on
07.05.2007 and completed on 25.01.2008.
6. However, respondent No.2 and others were not satisfied with the work that has been completed on 25.01.2008 and they approached the Karnataka Lokayukta with a complaint to take action against the persons, who are responsible for the completion of the project in an unscientific manner.
7. The Lokayukta on receipt of such complaint, conducted a preliminary inquiry, issued notices to the persons, who are associated with the project and after obtaining their replies, prima facie found that the project was an unscientific manner and there was no water supply to the overhead tank.
8. Further, the Lokayukta recommended that erring officials must be proceeded criminally. Based on the Lokayukta report, Executive Engineer lodged a complaint against Suryakanth and others. The present petitioner is arraigned as accused No.4 in the said FIR.
9. Thereafter, the police conducted the detailed investigation and filed chargesheet.
10. Apart from taking the action on the criminal side, departmental enquiries are also parallally conducted.
11. Sri Ravi B. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in departmental enquiry, the petitioner was able to elicit the answers from the officials, who have been cited as the witnesses. In fact the petitioner joined the said office on 04.01.2007 and for a brief period, he worked there and he got transferred from the said post to some other post on or from 03.04.2007. Admittedly, he is not a signatory to the project or for any other important documents. The work was also commenced on 07.05.2007 and got completed on 25.01.2008. Therefore, petitioner has sought for quashing of the pending criminal proceedings as it would amou
