IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4484/2013 BETWEEN:
1. H.N. Prabhakar S/o H.V. Nanjegowda, Aged about 55 years, Asst. Executive Engineer, BBMP, R/at No.1282, 1st Cross, BEML Main Road, New Thippasandra, Bengaluru-560 075.
2. M. Prabhu S/o Muniswamy, Aged about 47 years, R/at No.9, Swimming Pool Extn., 9th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru-560 017. ... PETITIONERS (By Sri. A.N. Radha Krishna, Advocate)) AND State of Karnataka By B.M.T.F. Police, Represented by The State Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru-560 001. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri. Nasrulla Khan, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings as against these petitioners in C.C.No.8012/2013 on the file of the IV A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.8012/2013 for the offences punishable under sections 120B, 409, 465, 468, 420, 217, 214 and 109 of Indian Penal Code and Section 321(B) of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.26160/2013(GM-RES) connected with Crl.P.No.2459/2013 and W.P.No.26162/2013(GM-RES) dated 26.09.2018 and submitted that a Coordinate Bench of this Court has already held that Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force(for short ‘BMTF’) which registered the FIR in the instant case is not a “police station” in terms of Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C. and that BMTF ceased to be in force w.e.f. 18.3.2013 and therefore BMTF had no jurisdiction either to register the case against the petitioners or to investigate into the alleged offences and hence the proceedings initiated against the petitioners being without authority of law is stark abuse of process of court.
4. Further, on merits, learned counsel would submit that the allegations made in the complaint, even if, accepted on their face value would go to show that the dispute alleged by the complainant has arisen wherein the BBMP officials had not taken any steps for preventing further construction of the complex. The grievance of the complainant even if accepted uncontroverted would disclose that the dispute in question is civil in nature. The petitioners were on deputation from PWD Department and were governed by the provisions of KCSR and therefore initiation of prosecution as against these petitioners without the prior sanction of their appointing authority is bad in law and continuation of the prosecution is an abuse of process of law and therefore liable to be quashed.
5. Refuting the above submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent- State submitted that the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.26160/2013 dated 26.09.2018 and other connected matters is challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No.6565/2019 and other connected matters and in the said circumstances, the issue having been seized by the Supreme Court, there is no ground to quash the proceedings.
6. On merits of the case, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the allegations made in the complaint clearly make out the ingredients of criminal offences. The complainant in the present case was the Police Sub Inspector of BMTF, Bengaluru. The complainant has alleged that, the accused No.1 and 2 who were the officials of BBMP by colluding with the property owner and accused No.3 had deviated the sanctioned plan. Even though the plan was approved for residential purpose, it was manipulated and converted into commercial purpose for constructing conference halls etc. Accused No.3 was the owner of the said property and he has violated the sanction plan by converting it from residential to commercial purpose. The matter being under investigation, there is no reason to quash the proceedings and has sought for dismissal of the petition.
7. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
8. Insofar as the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners touching the jurisdiction of BMTF to register the FIR and to proceed with the investigation is concerned, a Coordinate Bench of this Court after considering the notification issued by the Government constituting BMTF and the relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure has held that ‘BMTF’ is not a “Police Station” within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Code. Further, this Court has held that in terms of the notification issued by the State Government, the term of BMTF expired w.e.f from 18.03.2013. Even though said decision is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, yet having regard to the notification issued by the Government and the reasons assigned in the above order, I am in full agreement with the judgment of this Court and hold that ‘BMTF’ is not a police station within the meaning of Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C., and it had no authority or jurisdiction to register the above case in respect of the alleged offences.
9. Coming to merits of the contentions urged by the parties, a reading of the complaint prima-facie discloses the ingredients of offences under Sections 120(B), 409, 465, 468, 420, 217, 214 and 109 of Indian Penal Code. Though, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there are no specific allegations against any of the officials attached to BBMP, but there being clear allegations that the alleged illegalities have been committed in collusion with BBMP officials of the State, at this juncture, it cannot be said that the said allegations are not sufficient to probe the role of BBMP officials involved in the alleged incident.
10. However, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners herein are not named in the FIR and therefore the registration of FIR against the petitioners is unwarranted, is well-founded. None of the petitioners have been named in the complaint. Respondents have not conducted any preliminary inquiry to ascertain the role of the petitioners in the alleged acts. Therefore there was no basis for naming the petitioners as accused in the FIR. Having regard to the nature of the allegations made in the complaint, without there being clear allegations showing the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged acts, registration of FIR against the petitioner would be illegal and abuse of process of Court. To this extent, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners deserve to be accepted.
11. In the light of the above discussion, petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.8012/2013 pending on the file of IV Addl.CMM, Bangalore, are quashed. Since the complaint discloses commission of cognizable offences, the concerned Officer of BMTF who received the complaint or the Investigating Officer is directed to transfer the complaint to the police station having jurisdiction in terms of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in LALITHA KUMARI vs. GOVERNMENT OF U.P. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1. It is made clear that in the course of investigation, if any material evidence surfaces, investigating agency is at liberty to proceed against such persons in accordance with law.
Srl.
Sd/- JUDGE