BILIAY KUPPA NAIK Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and also learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent No.1 has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 427, 504, 506, 149, 420, 467, 468 of IPC against these petitioners herein. The main allegation is that the complainant/respondent is the resident of Shiralikeri, Shirali Village, Bhatkal Taluk, in the month of May 2015. He approached the said Shirali Gram Panchayat and enquired petitioner No.3. Later he came to know that the tender process will be conducted in the month of June. The complainant in the month of June again approached Gram Panchayat Shirali, but he came to know that tender process was already over and alleged in the complaint that petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 6 had conducted tender process without informing the complainant and allotted the shop premises to the petitioner Nos.5, 7, 9 and 12 by creating illegal agreement and thereby made false entries in the Panchayat records and cheated the real bidders.

(3.) The other allegations that on 07.10.2013, when the complainant/respondent enquired with the Gram Panchayat, the accused abused the complainant and threatened the respondent with dire consequences. It is also the allegation that resolution was passed in respect of rent agreement without sufficient quorum and thereby cheated the real bidders. Further it is contended that the shops are allotted to these petitioners without following the procedure and the complainant has not participated in the bid and therefore he has not locus-standi to file any such complaint. Hence, the very complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be quashed. The other contentions were raised that the public auction was conducted the tender process on 27.03.2010. The panchayat authority executed an agreement in the name of bidders on 30.06.2010 and advance amount also deposited. The tender procedure of the panchayat is completed as per the rules and guidelines of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. Hence, the complaint against the petitioners for the fabrication of the panchayat documents is not a cognizable offence and cognizance taken against these petitioners is illegal and the allegations made in the complaint is civil in nature. The petitioner Nos.1, 7, 8 and 9 are the members of Shirali Panchayat and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is Panchayat Secretary and Panchayat Development Officer of the said Panchayat. Petitioner No.4 is the President of Panchayat, petitioner No.5 is the bidder, petitioner Nos.6 and 10 are the witness to the agreement executed in the panchayat and there was total absence of any dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners in entering into the agreement with bidder. Hence, the very proceedings initiated against these petitioners is illegal. Therefore, the petition is liable to be allowed and the proceedings initiated against these petitioners are liable to be quashed.