A criminal prosecution for tax recovery under Kerala law is invalid if statutory remedies are not exhausted first.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS MONDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 20TH MAGHA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 861 OF 2025 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CMP NO.4777 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, SULTHANBATHERY PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

MANAGER, CHENNAI NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., 1ST FLOOR, PRABHU TOWER, M.G. ROAD, KOCHI PRESENTLY GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, 66/4514, PRABHU TOWER, 2ND FLOOR, OPP.CHENNAI SILKS, M.G. ROAD NORTH PALLIPADI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682035 BY ADV SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P).

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:

1 SHOBI.K.B., SECRETARY, MULLANKOLLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MULLENKOLLY .P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673579

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV SHRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY OTHER PRESENT:

SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR-SMT.SEETHA S THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

09.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Dated this the 9^th day of February, 2026

O R D E R

The petitioner is the accused in CMP. No.

4777/2024 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Sulthan Bathery (‘Trial Court’, for short), which has been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the first respondent alleging the commission of an offence punishable under Section 210 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (‘Act’, for brevity) read with Rule 27 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Taxation, Levy and Appeal) Rules (‘Rules’, in short).

2. The gist of the allegation in Annexure A2 complaint is that; the petitioner is liable to pay to the first respondent Rs. 9,343/- towards arrears of tax for the first and second half of 2023.

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even if the allegations in Annexure A2 private complaint are taken on their face value, the same would not attract the offence alleged against the petitioner. He relies on the order passed by this Court in Crl.M.C. No.6229/2025, wherein this Court has held that, unless the statutory remedies available to the first respondent under Section 210 of the Act are exhausted, a prosecution cannot be launched. It was without resorting to the above course for recovery of the alleged arrears as contemplated under Section 210 of the Act, that the prosecution has been launched, which is premature and unsustainable in law. Therefore, the petitioner may be given the benefit of the law laid down in Crl.M.C. No.6229/2025, and the entire proceedings may be quashed.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor oppose the Crl.M.C. They submit that there is no legal bar for the first respondent to independently prosecute the complaint against the petitioner. This Court may not embark upon a mini trial and terminate the prosecution due to the alternative statutory remedy. Hence, the Crl.M.C. may be dismissed.

6. The principle contention of the petitioner is that, in view of Section 210 of the Act, the first respondent ought to have first taken steps to issue a distraint warrant for recovery of the money before initiating the prosecution.

7. In the above context, it is profitable to refer to Section 210 of the Act, which reads as follows:

"210. Recovery of arrears of tax, cess etc.-

Any arrear of cess, rate, surcharge or tax imposed or fees levied under this Act shall