IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6604 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
1. H. Venkatesh Reddy S/o Late H.N.Hanuma Reddy Aged 61 years R/o No.2, Chikkappannahalli Doddanakkundi (PO) K.R.Puram Hobli Bengaluru-560 069 2. Nama Abhishek Reddy S/o Late Narasimha Reddy Aged about 34 years R/at No.111, ITPL Main Road Kundalahalli, Brook Field Bengaluru-560 059 3. P.G.Muthappa S/o Late P.A.Ganapathy Aged about 72 years R/at No.3367/3, 8th Cross 1st Main, HAL II Stage Bengaluru-560 039 …Petitioners (By Sri A.N.Radhakrishna, 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 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 27.12.2012 passed by IV A.C.M.M., Bengaluru in C.C.No.112/2013 taking cognizance and issuing summons.
This Criminal Petition is coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petition arising out of Cr.No.46/2012 registered by Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force (for short ‘BMTF’) for the offences punishable under Sections 192(A) and 192(B) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘Act’) and Sections 406, 409, 420, 120(B) r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the 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 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. 18.03.2013 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, he submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not attract the ingredients of any criminal offence by the petitioners. There are not even remote allegations against the petitioners as to the manner in which the petitioners have committed the alleged illegalities. The allegations made in the complaint, even if, accepted on their face value would go to show that there is encroachment of three Raja Kaluves. These allegations do not constitute any criminal offence insofar as the present petitioners are concerned and hence, the implication of the petitioners in the alleged offence is patently illegal and amounts to abuse of process of Court. Further, he submits that insofar as offence under Sections 192(A) and 192(B) of the Act, this court has taken a view that without issuing prior notice to the petitioners, registration of criminal case cannot be sustained. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of LALITHA KUMARI vs. GOVERNMENT OF U.P. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1.
5. Learned HCGP for respondent-State has argued in support of the impugned action contending that the allegations made in the complaint prima facie constitute the offence alleged therein and the petitioners are specifically named in the charge sheet. Therefore, there is no illegality in registering the case.
6. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
7. 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.
8. The identical petitions filed by accused Nos.8, 9 and 10 in Crime No.46/2012 registered by the respondent – BMTF in C.C.No.112/2013 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru have been allowed by this Court by order dated 20.03.2014 in Crl.P.No.3178/2013, Crl.P.No.3179/2013 and Crl.P.No.3177/2013 reserving liberty to the respondent - BMTF to start afresh an enquiry into the matter by giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to put forth their case and conduct the survey of encroached portion of Government land i.e., Raja Kaluve in their presence.
9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
Proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.112/2013 arising out of Crime No.46/2012 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 192(A) and 192(B) of the Act is quashed. Liberty is reserved to the revenue officials to take action in accordance with law for the offences, if any, committed in violation of Sections 192(A) and 192(B) of the Act and liberty is also reserved to the complainant to take further action on the same cause of action by making complaint against any of the accused by making out ingredients of the offences, in accordance with law.
10. Since the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, the concerned Officer of BMTF who received the complaint or the concerned officer of BMTF dealing with the case 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. FIR shall be initially registered in regular police station against the persons named in the complaint. 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.
Sd/- JUDGE cp*