IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5233 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
Krishna Murthy S.B. S/o Bettegowda, Aged about 45 years, R/at No.123/51, Dipti Apartment, 1st Cross, Kirloskar Colony, 4th Block, Basaveshwranagara, Bangalore-560 079. ... Petitioner (BY Sri. A.N. Radhakrishna, Advocate) AND 1. State of Karnataka, By B.M.T.F. Police, Represented by The State Public Prosecution, High Court Buildings, Bangalore-560 001.
2. Mr. Manoj Kumar Shetty, 971, 1st floor, Vijaya Bank Layout, Bilekahalli, Bangalore-560 076. ... Respondents (By Sri. Nasrulla Khan, HCGP for R-1;
Sri. S. Shaker Shetty, Advocate for R-2) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the FIR as against this petitioner in Crime No.156/2012 of BMTF Police, pending on the file of C.M.M., Bangalore.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Final Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R This petition is filed seeking to quash the FIR in Cr.No.156/2012 registered for the offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 218 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 3. Placing 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, learned counsel for the petitioners 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 was 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 petitioner or to investigate into the alleged offences and hence the proceedings initiated against the petitioner being without authority of law and an abuse of process of court.
4. Further, on merits, learned counsel submitted 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 on account of the alleged failure of BBMP officials in performing their statutory duty in registering Khata and issuing plan without site inspection and verification of records. These allegations would amount to acts of commission or omission by the petitioners in discharge of their official duties; hence, initiation of criminal action against the petitioner without prior sanction of the Department is bad in law.
5. Refuting the above submissions, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent 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 the merits of the case, learned counsel submitted that the allegations made in the complaint clearly make out the ingredients of criminal offences. There are specific allegations that BBMP Officials failed in registering Khata and issuing plan without site inspection and verification of records. In spite of repeated complaints to ARO and ADTP to revoke the Khata and building plan, the petitioner did not take any action and thereby facilitated the construction of illegal building. Further, the matter being under investigation, there is no reason to quash the proceedings and this sought for dismissal of the petition.
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1- State argued in line with respondent No.2 and sought for dismissal of the petition.
8. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
9. Insofar as the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner 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, even the term of BMTF expired w.e.f from 18.03.2013. Even though said decision is challenged 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.
10. Coming to merits of the contentions urged by the parties, a reading of the complaint prima-facie discloses the ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, and 218 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner and 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.
11. However, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner herein was not named in the FIR and therefore the registration of FIR against the petitioner was unwarranted, is well-founded. Petitioner was not named in the complaint. Respondents have not conducted any preliminary inquiry to ascertain the role of the petitioner in the alleged acts. Therefore there was no basis for naming the petitioner as accused in the FIR. To this extent, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be accepted.
In the light of the above discussion, petition is allowed. The FIR registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.156/2012 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. It is made clear that in the course of investigation, if any material evidence surfaces, investigating agency is at liberty to proceed against those persons in accordance with law.
In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2013 does not survive for consideration and accordingly it is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE BMC