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.2123 OF 2013 AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2124 OF 2013 IN CRL.P.NO.2123/2013 BETWEEN:
1. S.S.TOPGI S/O. S.G.TOPGI AGED 59 YEARS JOINT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE NOW WORKING AS DIRECTOR OF TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING (IN-CHARGE) DEPARTMENT OF TOWN PLANNING M.S.BUILDING GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE RESIDING AT NO.1, 14TH ‘A’ CROSS 3RD MAIN VYALIKAVAL BANGALORE – 560 003 2. B.M.TIRAKANA GOUDAR S/O. MALLANAGOWDA AGED 56 YEARS JOINT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE NOW WORKING AS ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE RESIDING AT NO.1111 PRESTIGE SOUTH REACH HOSAKERIHALLI CROSS 100 FT. RING ROAD BHANSHANKARI 3RD STAGE BANGALORE – 560 085 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE POLICE STATION BANGALORE CITY REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE CITY BANGALORE – 560 001 2. A.V.SRINIVASA MURTHY SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED MAJOR OCC: NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS RESIDING AT: NO.43, 5TH MAIN ROAD SHAKAMBARI NAGARA SARAKKI, J.P.NAGAR I PHASE BANGALORE – 560 002 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL.SPP FOR R1; R2 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.68/2013 OF RESPONDENT NO.1 BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE POLICE STATION, WHICH HAS BEEN REGISTERED ALLEGING COMMISSION OF OFFENCE P/U/S 192-A, 192-B OF KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT AND SEC.119, 409 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AS AGAINST THESE PETITIONERS.
IN CRL.P.NO.2124/2013 BETWEEN 1. K.NARASHIMA MURTHY S/O. M.KEMPAIAH AGED 57 YEARS WORKING AS JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (NORTH) RESIDING AT NO.1/b 3rd MAIN ROAD SAKAMMA GARDEN BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE – 560 004 2. V.PRAHLADA S/O. LATE O.VITTALA MURTHY AGED:58 YEARS OCC: DEPUTY DIRECTOR OFFICE OF JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING NORTH R/O. NO.1600/42/2, 18TH MAIN ROAD 40TH CROSS, 4TH –T BLOCK, JAYANAGARA BANGALORE – 560041 3. N.M.NANJEGOWDA S/O. MARIGOWDA AGED 46 YEARS WORKED AS ASST. DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING) AT PRESENT WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR NELAMANGALA PLANNING AUTHORITY RESIDING AT NO.1042, 10TH ‘D’ CROSS W.O.C. ROAD, 6TH MAIN MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BANGALORE – 560 086 4. ASHOK PATIL S/O. LATE SHAM RAO PATIL AGED 49 YEARS WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (NORTH) RESIDING AT NO.2034 4TH ‘B’ CROSS, ‘B’ SECTOR NEW TOWN YELAHANKA BANGALORE – 560 064 5. P.DAYANANDA S/O. LATE PUTTARAJU AGED 31 YEARS WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER JOINT DIRECTOR PLANNING (NORTH) RESIDING AT NO.784/1, 5TH MAIN RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK SRINAGAR BANGALORE – 560050 6. B.MANJESH S/O. LATE A.L.BASAWALINGEGOWDA AGED 45 YEARS WORKING AS ASST. DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING) (NORTH) RESIDING AT NO.3 SHUBHODAYA 7TH MAIN, SHIVANAGAR RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE – 560 010 7. T.NATARAJ SON OF LATE H.THATHAPPA AGED:54 YEARS OCC: JOINT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING SQUAD DIVISION, BBMP WAS WORKING AS JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH) R/O. NO.1651 38TH CROSS, EASE END-A ROAD 9TH BLOCK JAYANAGARA BANGALORE – 560 069 8. P.RAJEEV S/O. C.PUTTANARASIMHAIAH AGED:51 YEARS OCC: EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CENTRAL PROJECT WAS WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH) OFFICE OF JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH) R/O. NO.739, 2ND MAIN ROAD PADMANABHA NAGARA BANGALORE – 560 070 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE POLICE STATION BANGALORE CITY REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE CITY BANGALORE – 560 001 2. A.V.SRINIVASA MURTHY SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED MAJOR OCC: NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS RESIDING AT: NO.43, 5TH MAIN ROAD SHAKAMBARI NAGARA SARAKKI, J.P.NAGAR I PHASE BANGALORE – 560 002 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; R2 SERVED – UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.68/2013 OF RESPONDENT NO.1 BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE POLICE STATION, WHICH HAS BEEN REGISTERED ALLEGING COMMISSION OF OFFENCE P/U/S 192-A, 192-B OF KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT AND SEC.119, 409 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AS AGAINST THESE PETITIONERS.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER These two petitions are arising out of Cr.No.68/2013 registered by Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force (for short BMTF) for the offences punishable under Sections 192(A), 192(B) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Sections 119 and 409 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is duly served and unrepresented.
3. 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.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations made in the complaint do not attract the ingredients of any criminal offence by the petitioners. There are not even remote allegations against the petitioners as to the manner in which petitioners have committed the alleged illegalities. The allegations made in the complaint, even if, accepted on their face value would go to show that the housing project undertaken by NTI housing society has been assigned to Raheja builders. The said allegations do not constitute any criminal offence insofar as the present petitioners are concerned and hence, the implication of the petitioners in the alleged offence is patently illegal and amounts to abuse of process of Court. Further, he submits that insofar as offence under Sections 192(A) and 192(B) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act are concerned, this Court has taken a view that without issuing prior notice to the petitioners, registration of criminal case cannot be sustained. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Lalitha Sastry Vs. State of Karnataka – ILR 2008 KAR 4520.
5. Learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent No.1/State has argued in support of the impugned action contending that the allegations made in the complaint prima facie constitute the offence alleged therein and the petitioners are specifically named in the complaint. Therefore, there is no illegality in registering the case.
6. Considered the submission and perused the petition.
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 the allegations constituting the offence is concerned, a perusal of the complaint indicates that even though the FIR is registered for the offence punishable under Sections 192(A) and 192(B) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Sections 119 and 409 r/w 34 of IPC, a reading of the averments made in the complaint indicate that the whole grievance made out by the complainant relates to the project undertaken by the NTI housing Society which is later transferred to Raheja Builders. It is not indicated in the complaint as to how and in what manner the layout formed by the NTI society has been transferred to the private concerns. From the averments made in the complaint it can be gathered that NTI is a Society registered under the Societies Act and it is bound by its rules and regulations. Therefore, the alleged transaction necessarily requires to be investigated. But there are no allegations whatsoever in the complaint insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned. Except naming the petitioners at the foot of the complaint, no specific allegations are made against any one of the petitioners as to the role played by them in the alleged act of transfer of layout. In that view of the matter, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners deserves to be accepted. Moreover, the case having been registered by BMTF which had no authority under law to register the case against the petitioners and to embark upon investigation, to that extent, the petitions deserve to be allowed.
9. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. FIR registered against petitioners in Cr.No.68/2013 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 192(A) and 192(B) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Sections 119 and 409 r/w 34 of IPC is quashed. Liberty is reserved to the revenue officials to take action in accordance with law for the offences, if any, committed in violation of Sections 192(A) and 192(B) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act and liberty is also reserved to the complainant to take further action on the same cause of action by making complaint against any of the accused making out ingredients of the offence before the Competent Police Station.
Sd/- JUDGE HJ