IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2775/2013 BETWEEN PUTTASWAMY S K S/O KEMPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.24, 3RD MAIN, KANAKA LAYOUT, B.S.K. II STAGE, BANGALORE-560 070.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI SHANKARAPPA, ADV.) AND 1. NAGARAJU, NO.107, 2ND CROSS, MUNESHWARANAGAR, SUBRAMANYAPURA, BANGALORE-560 061.
2. BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE, CORPORATION BUILDING, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 002.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H M MURALIDHAR, ADV. FOR R1, SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R2.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN 2ND RESPONDENT POLICE PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE C.M.M., BANGALORE IN CR.NO.204/12, SO FAR AS THE PETR. IS CONCERNED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner herein has sought to quash the FIR in Cr.No.204/2012 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 468, 471 of IPC and under Section 321 of KMC Act.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that in respect of site No.177, a sale deed has been executed in the name of fictitious person and the BBMP officials have been insisting the purchaser to effect the construction in the said site.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR has been registered by Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force (hereinafter referred to as ‘BMTF’ for short) and the said BMTF is not a police station within the meaning of Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, registration of the complaint and consequent investigation by BMTF is without authority of law. Therefore, on this ground, registration of complaint and consequent investigation is liable to be quashed. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation made in the complaint does not attract the offences alleged in the FIR. The allegation made in the complaint is civil in nature. He further submits that one more case has already been registered by Banashankari Police Station in Cr.No.6/2012 and hence, impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.
4. Learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent No.2 and learned counsel for respondent No.1 have argued in support of the impugned proceedings and sought for dismissal of the petition.
Considered the submissions and perused the records.
5. 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.
6. Coming to merits of the contentions urged by the parties, a reading of the complaint prima-facie discloses the ingredients of offences under Sections 419, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code and therefore, the argument of the learned counsel in this regard is rejected.
Consequently, petition is allowed. The FIR registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.204/2012 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. 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.
VM CT-HR SD/- JUDGE