Inordinate delay in lodging a complaint, coupled with a lack of evidence to substantiate allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating, constitutes abuse of the legal process warranting quashing of proceedings.

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner – accused No.2 in C.C.No.1391/2024 arising out of Crime No.103/2020 seeks quashing of the impugned proceedings and for other reliefs.

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. The 2^nd respondent – defacto complainant having been served with notice of this petition has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not contested the petition.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the 2^nd respondent – defacto complainant filed the instant complaint dated 24.07.2020 interalia alleging that he was working as Assistant Director in Karnataka Vocational Training and Skill Development Corporation Ltd., (KVTSDCL – earlier KSDC) from 20.07.2019 onwards. It was alleged by him that the petitioner herein who was the Executive Director during the period 2014 - 2015 had illegally made / released payments and issued cheques in favour of others towards training expenses and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 IPC . The said complaint was registered as an FIR in Crime No.103/2020 by the 1^st respondent – police authorities, who conducted investigation and filed the impugned Charge Sheet against seven persons including petitioner by arraigning him as accused No.2, who is before this Court by way of the present petition.

4. A perusal of the impugned Charge Sheet / proceedings will indicate that while the petitioner was arraigned as accused No.2, Sri. Eshwarnaik V.P., Managing Director is arraigned as accused No.1 and the training officer and administrative assistant are arraigned as accused Nos.3 and 4, respectively. The alleged recipients of the alleged amounts / payments are arraigned as accused Nos.5 to 7, respectively as can be seen from the Charge Sheet summary.

5. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that there is a wholesale variation between the allegations made in the Complaint / FIR and the Charge Sheet, while the Complaint / FIR specifically alleges that the alleged cheques towards payment were signed by the petitioner – accused No.2, the Charge Sheet summary and material alleges that the cheques in fact were not signed by petitioner – accused No.2 but were actually signed by accused No.1 – Managing Director. The Charge Sheet material also does not disclose that the petitioner was guilty of the alleged offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust alleged against him except for the fact that he is alleged to have been the Executive Director of KVTSDCL at that time. The Charge Sheet material also indicates that the alleged payments in favour of accused Nos.5 to 7 were made pursuant to the recommendations of the Committee appointed by the State Government.

6. Further, though the allegations pertain to the period 2014 – 2015 when the petitioner was working as the Executive Director, the impugned Complaint was filed on 24.07.2020 after a long, inordinate and unexplained delay and latches of more than five years. As stated supra, there is complete and total variance between the allegations made in the complaint alleging that the petitioner had signed the cheques which is belied by the Charge Sheet material which indicates that the cheques were not signed by the petitioner but by the Managing Director. It is also pertinent to note that office orders of the year 2014 which also form part of the Charge Sheet material specifically permit release / disbursement of training expenses in favour of accused Nos.5 to 7. Under these circumstances, in the absence of any material to establish the role and involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences and without there being any Charge Sheet material to incriminate the petitioner for the alleged offences coupled with the fact that mere alleged dereliction of duty or alleged negligence on the part of the petitioner during the process of disbursement / release of payments cannot be construed or treated as the