IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.910/2013 BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Chandrakala W/o. Janardhan Aged about 38 years 2. Sri. Janardhan S/o. K.V.Krishnappa Aged about 45 years Both residing at Jigani village Anekal Taluk Bangalore District – 562 106. …Petitioners (By Sri. Srinivas, Advocate) AND:
1. State represented by Bannerghatta Police Bannerghatta, Bangalore – 560 083.
2. Niswartha Residents Welfare Association No.57-58, D Block, Nisarga Layout Bangalore – Anekal Road Jigani Hobli, Bangalore – 560 083 Represented by Hon’ble Secretary V. Ganeshan. ...Respondents (By Sri. I.S.Pramod Chandra, SPP-II for R.1 and Sri. Naveed Ahmed, Advocate for R.2) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.269/2012 arising out of CR.No.301/2011 of Bannerghatta P.S., Bangalore City, pending on the file of the Addl. C.J. (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Anekal and all further proceedings pursuant thereto.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned SPP-II for the respondent No.1. The counsel for the respondent No.2 is absent.
2. The petitioners have sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.269/12 arising out of Crime No.301/2011.
3. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, investigation was taken up and charge sheet was laid against the petitioners and accused No.3 under Sections 427 and 506 of IPC.
4. The material allegations leveled against the petitioners are that, accused No.1, namely petitioner No.1 herein, had obtained a quarrying licence, but without prior permission, accused Nos. 1 and 2 used explosives in the said quarry, as a result, extensive damage was caused to the neighbouring houses and when C.Ws. 2 to 4 questioned accused Nos. 1 and 2, accused Nos. 1 and 2 along with accused No. 3 issued threats to the said witnesses.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits, that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are malafide and ulteriorly motivated. Earlier to the above complaint, second respondent had filed a public interest litigation for cancellation of the quarrying licence issued to accused No.1. Having failed in that attempt, the instant proceedings are initiated. There is no material to substantiate the allegations. The very fact that petitioner No.2 is also implicated in the alleged incident, even though he is not the licence holder, suggests the malafide motive of the complainant, and thus seeks to quash the proceedings.
6. The learned SPP has argued in support of the impugned action and would submit that the material collected by the investigating agency prima facie makes out the offence, except that the prior permission under the Magistrate was not obtained as required under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.
7. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on going through the records, I am of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed.
8. Firstly, it is not in dispute that the petitioner No.1 was holding a valid quarrying licence. Except making allegations that in the course of quarrying, accused Nos. 1 and 2 had used explosives, the allegations do not specify as to when such explosion had taken place. No steps appear to have been taken as yet to cancel his licence for violation of the terms and conditions of the lease. The very fact that the above allegations are made against the petitioners only after the dismissal of the public interest litigation filed by the second respondent, speaks of malafides and ulterior motive. Though in the panchanama it is stated that large number of houses were damaged due to the use of explosives, there is nothing on record to show that the owners of those houses have at any time lodged a complaint against the alleged incident, which itself is sufficient to show that the second respondent has initiated criminal action solely out of spite and without any factual basis. That apart, the offences charged against the petitioners are non-cognisable offences. The investigation into the above offences could not have been conducted by the Investigating Officer without prior sanction as required under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, for all these reasons, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
Proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No. 269/2012 arising out of Crime No.301/2011 of Bannerghatta Police Station, Bangalore City, pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Anekal are quashed.
Liberty is reserved to the investigating agency to proceed against the petitioners after complying with the requirements of Section 155 of Cr.P.C.
Sd/- JUDGE Mgn/-