Statutory remedies must be exhausted before initiating criminal proceedings for tax recovery under §210 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.

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. 3687 OF 2025 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CMP NO.5187 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,TIRUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS, 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 THE SECRETARY, THALAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT, OFFICE OF THE THALAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT, B.P ANGADI.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676102

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV SHRI.R.RAJPRADEEP- STANDING COUNSEL THALAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT OTHER PRESENT:

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR- SRI.M.P.PRASANTH 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.

5187/2024 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Tirur (‘Trial Court’, for short), which has been 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 Rs. 9,419/- as arrears of tax payable to the first respondent for the period from 2023-2024.

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 be recoverable as an arrear of public revenue under the law relating to the recovery of arrears of public revenue for the time being in force:

Provided that the Secretary of