IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA WRIT PETITION No.39163 OF 2014 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Golden Gate Properties Ltd., A Public Ltd. Company, Incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered Office at No.820, 80 Feet Road, 8th Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 085. Represented by its Director Mr. Krishna K. …Petitioner (By Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, Advocate) AND:
1. Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force, BBMP Head Office, N.R. Saykar Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.
Rep. by DYSP.
2. Sri. C.B. Nagaraju, No.182, Nagarabhavi Main Road, Bhairaveshwara Nagara, 4th C Main Road, Bengaluru – 560 072. ...Respondents (By Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra, SPP-II for R-1 vide order dated 20.08.2015 notice to R-2 is held sufficient) This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to quash the FIR registered by the respondent No.1 in Crime No.57/2014 dated 19.07.2014 produced vide Annexure-L to the writ petition.
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SPP-II for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the initiation of criminal action under Section 192(A) of Karnataka Land Reforms Act (‘the Act’ for brevity). The allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner herein encroached into the government karab land, public road, temple property and a primary canal (raja kaluve).
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Lalitha Sastry Vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in ILR 2008 KAR 4520 and with reference to para 4 would submit that even assuming that there was any such encroachment as contended by the complainant or the State, yet in view of the specific provisions contained under Section 192(A) of the Act and to sub-serve the principles of natural justice, the revenue authorities were required to issue show cause notice and conduct preliminary enquiry to determine into the allegations before registering the complaint. Furthermore, the proceedings are initiated at the instance of a private party who has no locus standi to lodge the complaint. The properties in question were the subject matter of acquisition proceedings held in 1943. The petitioner herein acquired title to the property in the year 2006. In the said circumstances, before initiating action against the petitioner at the instance of a 3rd party, it was incumbent on the revenue authorities to conduct a preliminary enquiry as held in Lalitha Sastry’s case. Hence, on this ground he seeks to quash the proceedings.
4. The learned SPP-II appearing for the State, does not dispute the fact that preliminary enquiry was not conducted by the revenue authorities as laid down in the decision of this Court in Lalitha Sastry’s case. Nonetheless, he submits that the allegations made in the FIR constitute the offence under Section 192(A) of the Act, which requires to be investigated into by the jurisdictional police and hence there is no ground to quash the proceedings.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having regard to the allegations made against the petitioner and in the light of the law explained by this Court in Lalitha Sastry’s case, in my view, an opportunity is required to be afforded to the petitioner before initiating criminal prosecution for the alleged offence punishable under Section 192(A) of the Act. For the said purpose, writ petition is allowed. FIR registered in Crime No.57/2014 by the Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force against the petitioner is quashed.
6. The complainant/respondent No.2 is at liberty to report the alleged violations to the concerned Revenue Authorities, in which event, the revenue authorities shall conduct a preliminary enquiry by issuing show cause notice in terms of the Circular dated 08.09.2008 (RD 674 LGB 2008) and thereafter, proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE SV