IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.391 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
Muniraju R S/o late Ramaiah Aged about 50 years R/at No.80, 12th Cross MTS Layout Kengeri Upanagara Bengaluru – 560 060.
(By Sri.Kemparaju, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka by Rajarajeshwari Nagara Police Station Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court Complex Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Additional Commissioner of Police Organized Crime Branch CCB, Bengaluru City – 560 001.
3. Smt.Nagamma W/o late Venkatesh Aged about 48 years Residing at No.78 Pattanagere Village ... Petitioner In front of Maramma Devastana Rajarajeshwari Nagara Bengaluru – 98.
(By Sri.S.Rachaiah, Advocate) …Respondents This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying to set aside the Order No.182/Crime(2)/COP/2018, dated 02.01.2019 passed by the respondent-Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) in Crime No.293/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 406, 420, 120(b), 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(1) of Karnataka Control of Organized Crime Act pending on the file of the Hon’ble Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-1).
This Criminal Petition, coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard Sri.Kemparaju, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for the State.
2. A complaint came to be lodged on 19.10.2018 by 3rd respondent before Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station against petitioner and other accused persons alleging that she belonged to scheduled caste and the Special Deputy Commissioner had granted land in Sy.No.11 of Pattanagere Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, which was tried to be grabbed by Muddaiah and his children and they have trespassed into said land and had constructed five sheds. Hence, she sought for action being taken against those persons who are illegally occupying her property. She also further alleged that Muddaiah and his children have threatened to get katha transferred to their names. She also admit that she has handed over all the original documents of her properties to them and on these lines, complaint came to be registered against the petitioner and other accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 506, 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC. Additional Commissioner of Police in exercise of powers vested under Section 24(1)(a) of the Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000 (for short, ‘COCA Act’) has granted sanction to investigate the aforesaid offences against the accused persons by incorporating Section 3(1) of COCA Act on the ground that accused persons have indulged themselves in continuing with their unlawful activity by a organized crime and have formed an organized crime syndicate. Hence, petitioner is before this Court for quashing of said proceedings.
3. As could be seen from the order dated 02.01.2019 and proceedings relating to the invocation of COCA provision insofar as petitioner (accused No.3) is concerned, the only allegation is that he is an accused in the present criminal case, viz., accused No.3 in Crime No.293/2018 registered by Rajarajeshwari Police Station by invoking Section 2(f) of the COCA Act.
4. Definition of ‘Organized Crime’ as defined under Section 2(f) means “group of two or more persons who acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang, indulge in activities of organized crime.
5. In the instant case as noticed hereinabove and at the cost of repetition, it has to be held that petitioner herein is arraigned as 3rd accused in Crime No.293/2018 and except registration of said FIR, there are no other criminal case/s registered against him and as such, prima facie, this would indicate that there are no activities in which petitioner’s complicity has been alleged by the prosecution for invoking the provision of COCA Act.
6. Though Sri.Kemparaju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would vehemently contend that entire proceedings pending against petitioner is to be quashed, such an exercise would not be undertaken by this Court inasmuch as the matter is at the stage of investigation and it would not be in the interest of the prosecution as well as the society at large to scuttle the investigation. Hence, to the extent of invoking Section 3(1) of COCA Act against the petitioner by order dated 02.01.2019 alone requires to be quashed and liberty be granted to the prosecution to proceed against the petitioner for investigating into the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506, 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i) Criminal Petition is allowed in part.
ii) Investigation under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000 in Crime No.293/2018 against petitioner as ordered by the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime), Bangalore in No.182/Crime(II)/COP/2018 dated 02.01.2019 stands quashed.
iii) Respondent-State is at liberty to proceed against petitioner and other accused persons by investigating FIR registered in Crime No.293/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506, 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC.
I.A.No.1/2019 for stay does not survive for consideration and it stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE Prs*