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.5928 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI W/O RADHAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL DC OFFICE (RURAL), BANGALORE R/AT NO.30, 36TH CROSS 9TH A MAIN, 5TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560058. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR BMTF POLICE STATION BBMP, BANGALORE 500 065 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE FIR AND CHARGE SHEET DATED:18.7.13 IN CRIME NO.163/2012 DATED:3.8.12. (C.C.NO.13378/13) AT (ANNEXURES A AND B) FILED BY THE RESPONDENT ON THE FILE OF THE CMM COURT, BANGALORE.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER This petition is filed seeking to quash the FIR in Cr.No.163/2012 registered for the offence punishable under section 270 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for respondent.
3.Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 High Court had directed the State Government to take a decision in respect of dumping the garbage in Mandur Area. But on account of protest of the villagers/residents the garbage was not removed. The same was not intentional and therefore Section 270 of Indian Penal Code is not applicable to facts of the case. Further, petitioner being an officer of the State could have been prosecuted for the alleged offence without prior sanction under Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code. Hence, the action initiated by the Respondent is illegal arbitrary, without jurisdiction and without authority of 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 High Court Government Pleader submitted that the allegations made in the complaint clearly make out the ingredients of criminal offence. The Inspector of Police of BMTF Police station has submitted charge sheet in Cr.No.163/12 against the accused for the offence punishable Under Section 270 of Indian Penal Code and there is no reason to quash the proceedings.
7. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
8. Insofar as the contentions raised by the 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, 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 offence under Section 270 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 the FIR contains clear allegations that the Health officers and the contractors have committed the acts which were likely to spread infectious diseases. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said allegations are not sufficient to establish the role of Government officials involved in the alleged incident. However as charge sheet laid before the Court being without authority of law, without recording any finding on the merits of the case, the charge sheet laid by the BMTF is liable to be quashed.
10. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The FIR and the charge sheet in Cr.No.163/2012 are 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 rs