IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.175 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
MR. AL HAJI NASIR AHMED S/O AMEER JAN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT CITB HOUSE, LAST CROSS, UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE-570001. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: SANATH KUMAR SHETTY K, ADVOCATE) AND 1. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY J.L.B. ROAD, MYSORE 570001 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001.
3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER UDAYAGIRI POLICE STATION, DEVARAJA SUB-DIVISION, MYSORE CITY-570001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI: P.S.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R2 AND R3) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN FIR 1335/12 BEFORE THE UDAYAGIRI POLICE STATION, DEVARAJA SUB-DIVISION, MYSORE CITY DATED:9.11.12 AND THE SAID FIR STANDS REGISTERED IN CR.NO.176/12 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL.C.J., AND JMFC, MYSORE.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Addl. SPP for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the records.
2. Undisputed facts are that, petitioner herein purchased an extent of 30 guntas of land comprised in Sy.No.33/2 of Devanur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, under a registered sale deed dated 09.09.2005 for a consideration of Rs.3,75,000/-. The records produced before this court indicate that prior to purchase of said land, petitioner made every possible inquiries with the concerned authorities to ensure that the property in question was not encumbered in any manner. Annexure-‘L’ produced by the petitioner indicates that a certificate was also collected from Mysore Urban Development Authority (“MUDA” for short) to the effect that the said property was not acquired by MUDA or any other Agencies till 04.10.2007. That being the case, respondent No.1 namely the MUDA through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, MUDA, filed a complaint before respondent No.3 – Police, alleging that the property in question was acquired by the MUDA and in spite of this fact, vendor of the petitioner alienated the said properties to the petitioner.
3. There are no allegations whatsoever in the complaint that the petitioner was in the knowledge of prior acquisition. As a matter of fact, the complaint was lodged only against vendor of the petitioner and others. There are no allegations whatsoever against the petitioner either with regard to the alleged conspiracy or with regard to his knowledge of acquisition of the said land. However, during the course of investigation, a requisition was made by the Investigating Officer to include the petitioner herein as one of the accused on the ground that the investigation revealed that the petitioner herein was also a party to the alleged act. Even in the said requisition, there are no allegation that he was either a party to the alleged conspiracy or that he was in the knowledge of alleged acquisition of the land by the MUDA.
4. On 22.11.2018, learned SPP-II sought to produce relevant records of MUDA regarding acquisition of land. Till date, no such records are produced before the court indicating that no material is available in proof of acquisition of above land.
5. In this context, if Annexure-‘L’ produced by the petitioner is analyzed, it goes to show that property in question was not acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and no records were maintained in the MUDA or any other revenue authorities regarding acquisition of land. Copy of the Encumbrance Certificates produced by petitioner at Annexures- ‘B’ and the copy of RTC at Annexure-‘E’ for the relevant period does not disclose acquisition of these properties. These documents therefore prima facie disclose that the petitioner was not aware of the alleged acquisition. In the absence of any material to show that he had any prior knowledge of acquisition, the very requisition made by the Investigating Officer to incorporate the name of petitioner is baseless and in that view of the matter, continuation of investigation against petitioner, in my view, cannot be sustained. Since the prosecution has not been able to produce any prima facie material to show the involvement of petitioner in the alleged offence, in my view, petitioner cannot be asked to face criminal prosecution.
6. It is made clear that, in the course of investigation, if any concrete evidence is collected in proof of involvement of petitioner, it is open for the prosecution to make necessary application to the concerned court to seek implication of petitioner or any other person involved in the alleged offence.
With this observation, the petition is allowed. FIR in Crime No.176/2012 on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysore is quashed only insofar as petitioner herein is concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss