Authority: High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru

Order Date: 1 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Criminal Petition No.9663 of 2021 filed by Krishnamurthy C., a Junior Engineer of Karnataka Housing Board (KHB), seeking to set aside the order dated 15‑11‑2018 that took cognizance of offences under IPC Sec 420 read with Sec 34 in C.C.No.31011/2018.
  • Respondents: (1) State of Karnataka represented by Yelahanka New Town Police Station; (2) J.C.Kala Educational and Charitable Trust (R).
  • Allegations: Private complaint invoked offences under Sec 420, 468 and 471 IPC r/w Sec 34, claiming that the petitioner conspired with accused Nos 1 and 2 to execute a sale deed of Civic Amenity Site No.14, originally allotted in 1991 to Adarsh Educational and Social Service Trust, after the site was mortgaged to Shri Lakshmi Mahila Sahakara Bank and subsequently auctioned without KHB’s permission.
  • KHB denied knowledge of the auction and refused to acknowledge the sale; however, it executed a sale deed on 17‑02‑2014 in favour of the original allottee.
  • The petitioner, while serving as Assistant Executive Engineer (Yelahanka New Town Branch) in May‑June 2012, merely executed the sale deed that had been approved by his predecessor (correspondence dated 17‑11‑2011).
  • The charge sheet (Crime No.274/2014) was filed, and the trial court took cognizance on 15‑11‑2018, registering the case as C.C.No.31011/2018.
  • Petitioner argued lack of sanction under Sec 197 CrPC, reliance on Sec 82 Karnataka Housing Board Act (good‑faith protection), and that the criminal complaint was a civil dispute turned criminal.
  • Respondent No.2 contended the petitioner had been dismissed on 10‑01‑2017, thus no sanction required, and that the petitioner’s actions were outside official duties.
  • The Court examined relevant writ petitions: W.P.No.24159/2005 (original allottee vs. KHB, order dated 01‑03‑2010) and W.P.No.29067/2014 (respondent‑2 seeking direction to execute sale deed, pending).
  • The Court noted that the petitioner was re‑inducted on 21‑05‑2018; therefore, at the time of cognizance (15‑11‑2018) he was in service, making Sec 197 sanction applicable.
  • Legal precedents cited included judgments on sanction requirements, the necessity of intention to cheat for Sec 420 r/w Sec 34, and the primacy of special statutes over general procedural provisions.
  • The Court concluded that the sale deed was executed under Board approval, the dispute was essentially civil, and there was no intention to cheat; consequently, invoking Sec 420 r/w Sec 34 was inappropriate.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court allowed the criminal petition.
  • The order dated 15‑11‑2018 taking cognizance in C.C.No.31011/2018 is set aside.
  • All proceedings against petitioner Krishnamurthy C. (accused No.3) for the offence under Sec 420 r/w Sec 34 IPC are quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

Topics: Criminal Procedure, Public Servant Sanction