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.2125 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
1. K N NARAYANAGOWDA S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, WORKING AS JOINT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING, B.M.R.D.A, THEN ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING, BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE, R/AT:NO.390,2ND CROSS, 20TH MAIN ROAD, NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 096 2. ASHOK PATIL S/O LATE SHAM RAO PATIL, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER, JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING(NORTH) R/AT NO.2034, 4TH "B" CROSS,"B" SECTOR, NEW TOWN YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560 064 3. P DAYANANDA S/O LATE PUTTARAJU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER JOINT DIRECTOR PLANNING(NORTH) R/AT NO.784/1,5TH MAIN, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK, SRINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 064 4. T NATARAJ S/O LATE H THATHAPPA, AGED:54 YEARS, OCC:JOINT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING, SQUAD DIVISION,BBMP, WAS WORKING AS JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH) R/O NO.1651, 38TH CROSS,EASE END-A ROAD, 9TH BLOCK-JAYANAGARA, BANGALORE-560 069 5. P RAJEEV S/O C PUTTANARASIMHAIAH, AGED:51 YEARS, OCC:EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CENTRAL PROJECT, WAS WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH) OFFICE OF JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING(SOUTH) R/O NO.739,2ND MAIN ROAD, PADMANABHA NAGARA, BANGALORE-560 070 6. K A SHANTHARAJ S/O ANDANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION:ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING, OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR(NORTH) BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE WAS WORKING AS TOWN PLANNER, OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR(SOUTH) BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,BANGALORE R/AT NO.258-259, HUDCO LAYOUT, NEW KANTHARAJ URS ROAD, MYSORE-23 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: P PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE CITY, BANGALORE-560 001 2. S RAMESH AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO.1,4TH TEMPLE STREET, SIDDHANTI BLOCK, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 15.12.2014 PETITION AGAINST R2 IS DISMISSED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR. NO.69/2013 OF RESPONDENT NO.1, BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE POLICE STATION, WHICH HAS BEEN REGISTERED ALLEGING COMMISSION OF OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 192-A, 192-B OF KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, SEC.321-B OF KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT AND SEC.119, 409 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R This petition arising out of Cr.No.69/2013 registered by Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force (for short ‘BMTF’) for the offences punishable under Sections 192(A), 192(B) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, Section 321(B) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act and sections 119, 409 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the respondent No.1-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, 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. He further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not attract the ingredients of any criminal offence committed 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 a developer viz., Brigade Enterprises Limited had development a commercial-cum-
residential complex known as ‘Brigade Gateway’ located at Malleshwaram, Bengaluru. It is alleged that the said complex has not been granted proper approvals that are required for its development and various irregularities and illegalities were noticed, wherein with the active connivance and in collusion with the competent authorities within the BBMP, necessary approval in the development of residential portion of the said complex has not been obtained. The said allegations do not constitute any criminal offences insofar as the present petitioners are concerned and hence, the implication of the petitioners in the alleged offences is patently illegal and amounts to abuse of process of Court. Further, he submits that insofar as offences under Sections 192(A) and 192(B) of the Karnataka Land Revenue 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 Smt. Lalitha Sastry Vs. State of Karnataka – ILR 2008 KAR 4520.
5. Learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1/State has argued in support of the impugned action contending that the allegations made in the complaint prima facie constitute the offences alleged against the petitioners therein and therefore, there is no illegality in registering the case against the petitioners.
Considered the submissions and perused the records.
6. 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.
7. Coming to merits of the contentions urged by the parties, a reading of the complaint prima-facie discloses the ingredients of offences under Sections 119, 409 r/w 34 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 by the Developer viz., Brigade Enterprises Limited in collusion with the Government officials of the State, at this juncture, it cannot be said that the said allegations are not sufficient to probe the role of Government officials involved in the alleged incident.
In the light of the above discussion, petition is allowed. The FIR registered against the petitioners in Cr.No.69/2013 is quashed. 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 *mn/-