1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9196/2016

BETWEEN

N.B. Vrishabendrappa,

S/o Basavarajappa,

Aged about 48 years,

Flat #10, #85, Panaroma Point I apt.,

V Cross Road, Banashankari I Stage,

Bengaluru – 560 050.

.... Petitioner

(By Sri.Ashok Haranahalli, Senior Advocate for

Sri. Srinivas Rao S.S., Adv.)

AND

1. The State of Karnataka by,

Malur Police Station,

Kolar District,

Rep. by SPP,

High Court Building,

Bengaluru.

2. Munianjanappa,

S/o Narayanappa,

Aged about 49 years,

Executive Officer,

Malur Taluk Panchayat,

Kolar District.

... Respondents

(By Sri. Mahesh Shetty, HCGP for R1;

R2 served and unrepresented)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. praying to quash the charge sheet filed by the first

respondent police in Crime No.17/2005 and all further

2

proceedings in C.C.No.17/2005 and all further proceedings in

C.C.No.252/2009 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.

Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Malur, for offences P/U/S 409, 420, 465,

468, 471, 474 and 109 of IPC against the petitioner.

This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day,

the Court made the following:

ORDER

Heard Sri.Ashok Haranahalli, learned senior counsel,

learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP.

2. The petitioner is before this Court praying for

quashing of charge sheet in C.C.No.252/2009 arising out

of Crime No.17/2005 on the file of learned Principal Civil

Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Malur, for the offences punishable under Sections 409,

420, 465, 468, 471, 474 and 109 of IPC.

3. The learned senior counsel inviting the attention

of this Court to running page No.25 at unnumbered para

would submit that the allegations made against the

petitioner are that he has not performed his duty and has

omitted to perform the duty cast upon him and thereby

has failed to discharge his duties. He would further

submit that if the allegations are that the petitioner is

guilty of omissions and commissions in discharging his

3

duties then, it is a case where the provisions of Section

197 of Cr.P.C. gets attracted and no useful purpose would

be served if he were to be proceeded against for the

omissions

and

commissions

without

obtaining

the

mandatory prior sanction. He would further contend that

the Government which is the Sanctioning Authority had

conducted an enquiry and after conducting enquiry, the

Government has absolved the petitioner of any guilt, on

the premise that he was functioning as a Second Division

Assistant only and was not required to pass the bills. He

would also place reliance on the ruling of Hon’ble Apex

Court rendered in the case of State of Maharashtra vs.

Dr. Budhikota Subbarao reported in (1993) 3 Supreme

Court Cases 339, inviting the attention of this Court to

paragraph No.5 which has held as under:-

“5. Prior to examining if the courts below

committed any error of law in discharging the

accused it may not be out of place to examine the

nature of power exercised by the court under

Section 197 of the Code of the extent of protection it

affords to public servant, who apart, from various

hazards in discharge of their duties, in absence of a

4

provision like the one may be exposed to vexatious

prosecutions. Section 197 (1) and (2) of the Code

reads as under:-

“197. (1) When any person who is or was a

Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not

removable fro