IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2562 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
1. S S TOPGI S/O S.G. TOPGI AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: THEN ASSISTANT DIRECTOR AND MEMBER SECRETARY, BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY, NOW WORKING AS DIRECTOR TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (IN-CHARGE), M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU RESIDING AT: NO.1, 14TH “A” CROSS, 3RD MAIN ROAD, VYALIKAVAL, BENGALURU-03.
2. S.B HONNUR S/O BALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: THE THEN MEMBER SECRETARY, BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY BANGALORE NOW WORKING AS ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING BANGALORE METROPOLITAN RURAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BANGALORE 52 RESIDING AT NO. A-1, SHANKAR SAMPURNA APARTMENTS, SHANKAR MATH ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560004.
3. A.V. RANGESH S/O A.M. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: THE THEN MEMBER SECRETARY, BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY NOW WORKING AS ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DHARWAD ZONE, RESIDING AT NO. 7, 10TH MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR, III BLOCK, BANGALORE 560041 4. K.R VEERENDRARNATH S/O RAMANNA K V AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: THE THEN MEMBER SECRETARY, BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY PRESENTLY WORKING AS ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE RESIDING AT: NO.74, I MAIN, 6TH BLOCK 3RD PHASE, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BENGALURU-85.
5. B. MAHENDRA S/O BELURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER SECRETARY, BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY BANGALORE RESIDING AT NO. 301/10, 7TH "C" MAIN, 35TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-11 6. H.M. MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY S/O H. MARULARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC:THE THEN DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING IN BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY, NOW WORKING AS JOINT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING AND MEMBER SECRETARY, HOSAKOTE PLANNING AUTHORITY, HOSAKOTE.
RESIDING AT NO.112, I MAIN, II STAGE, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-40 7. ASHOKA M N S/O A.R. NAGAPPA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: THE THEN IN-CHARGE MEMBER SECRETARY, BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY, NOW WORKING AS JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING STATE TOWN PLANNING BOARD, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE.
RESIDING AT NO.374/5, SAI THULSI PARADISE, 9TH MAIN, 50 FEET ROAD, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE-560019.
8. N.K. THIPPESWAMY S/O N.P KRISHAN NAIK AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: THE THEN ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, IN BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY NOW WORKING AS JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING, BDA BANGALORE.
RESIDING AT NO.56/43, 1 MAIN, HOSAKEREHALLY, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BANGALORE-560085.
9. DHANANJAYA REDDY N.V S/O N.S.VEMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: WORKING AS JOINT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING, BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY, RESIDING AT NO.27, 5TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, VIDYAGIRI LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI I STAGE, BANGALORE-560072.
10. SMT. VIDYARANI W/O HARI R, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY, RESIDING AT NO.3, GROUND FLOOR, 13TH "B" MAIN, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE 560003 11. MOHAMMED FAZIL S/O MOHAMMED ILIYAS, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: THEN ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING IN BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY, PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BANGALORE METROPOLITAN RURAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BANGALORE 52 RESIDING AT NO.BA-1, KAVALBYRASANDRA QUARTERS, BENGALURU-52 12. SADANANDA ACHARYA S/O P. SUBRAYA ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, BANGALORE-MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY, RESIDING AT NO.224, II FLOOR, SHARAVATHI BLOCK, N.G.V, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-47.
13. SATHYANARAYANA S/O LATE K. BALARAM, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: WORKING AS TOWN PLANNER, BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY, RESIDING AT NO. 23/A, III CROSS, CHOWDAIAH BLOCK, R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU-32 14. VANITHA H.M WIFE OF MUDALAGIRIGOWDA H.T AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC: WORKING AS TOWN PLANNER, BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY RESIDING AT NO.310, 7TH CROSS, SHIVANANDANAGAR, NEW THIPPASANDRA POST, BANGALORE 75 WORKED AS TOWN PLANNER (BY SRI: P PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE-560001.
2. SRI M.K KEMPEGOWDA ... PETITIONERS S/O M.J.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1, CHOWDESHWARI TWO WHEELER CLINIC, GAVIPURAM GUTTAHALLI, BANGALORE-19.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI: G.R.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED FIR INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CR. NO.76/2013 OF B.M.T.F. POLICE, PENDING BEFORE THE C.M.M. COURT, BANGALORE CITY ON THE FILE OF RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE, FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 420,406,120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.321(B) OF KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R This petition is filed seeking to quash the FIR in Cr.No.76/2013 registered for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 120B r/w 34 Indian Penal Code and Section 321(B) of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1.
2. 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(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.
3. 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 dispute alleged by the complainant has arisen out of a written contract entered into between the Government and NICE styled as ‘FWA’(Frame Work Agreement). The grievance of the complainant even if accepted uncontroverted would disclose that the dispute in question is civil in nature and therefore, invocation of criminal process by the respondents is illegal and is liable to be quashed.
4. 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.
5. On the merits of the case, learned counsel for respondent submitted that the allegations made in the complaint clearly make out the ingredients of criminal offences. There are specific allegations that NICE (M/s. Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Limited) with the help of Sri. M.R.Rudresh a local politician, and with the active collusion of State Officials and KIADB were involved in various illegalities in converting agricultural land for residential and commercial purpose. The matter being under investigation, there is no reason to quash the proceedings.
6. Learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1- State has argued in line with respondent No.2 and has sought for dismissal of the petition.
Considered the submissions and perused the records.
7. 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.
8. 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, 406, 120(B) 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 and BMICP, but there being clear allegations that the alleged illegalities have been committed by NICE and its agencies 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.
9. However, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners herein are not named in the FIR and therefore the registration of FIR against the petitioners is unwarranted, is well-founded. None of the petitioners have been named in the complaint. Respondents have not conducted any preliminary inquiry to ascertain the role of the petitioners in the alleged acts. Therefore there was no basis for naming the petitioners as accused in the FIR. Having regard to the nature of the allegations made in the complaint, without there being clear allegations showing the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged acts, registration of FIR against the petitioner would be illegal and abuse of process of Court. To this extent, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners deserves to be accepted.
In the light of the above discussion, petition is allowed. The FIR registered against the petitioners in Cr.No.76/2013 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.
*mn/-
Sd/- JUDGE