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.5631 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
SADASHIVANAGAR CLUB (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PALACE ORCHARDS WELFARE ASSOCIATION) A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE MYSORE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960, UNDER REG. NO.143/1964-65, HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT NO.21, 15TH CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 080, REPRESENTED BY ITS HON.SECRETARY, SRI K.P.VASANTH KUMAR. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: RAJESH RAI K, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA TROUGH BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING,BANGALORE -560 001.
2. MALLIKARJUN L.S., AGE 46 YEARS R/A NO.32/A, 8TH MAIN ROAD, RMV EXTENSION, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 080. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R1; R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.24/14 DATED:17.5.14 PENDING INVESTIGATION ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1, BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE PRODUCED HERETO AS ANNEXURE-A.
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.24/2014 registered for the offences punishable under sections 420, 217, 120B r/w 34 Indian Penal Code and Section 321, 321(B) of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act and of Section 72 Bangalore Development Authority Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1.
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. Further, on merits, learned counsel would submit that the complainant does not disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged in the FIR. Some of the sections mentioned in the FIR such as Section 321 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 are not provisions dealing with offences while other Sections 321B and 72 of the BDA Act are also not attracted to the averments made in the complaint. Insofar as the offences under penal code is concerned, the respondent-Task Force neither has the power nor the jurisdiction to either register the FIR or conduct any investigation on the basis of the same. The respondent Task Force has usurped power not vested in it and the registration of the FIR is per se illegal and is liable to be quashed.
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 counsel for respondent submitted that the allegations made in the complaint clearly make out the ingredients of criminal offences. Contrary to the licence, petitioner has proceeded to construct a massive three storey building by changing the residential character of the locality. The officials of the BBMP in conspiracy with the office bearers of the Sadashivanagar Club, illegally issued the building License-which caused wrongful loss to the BDA and wrongful gain to the Club. The office bearers of the Sadashivanagar Club violated the provisions of the BDA Act by deviating the usage of this CA site and built two Tennis Courts in violation of the Plan issued by the BBMP, which attracts the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Act.
7.Learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1- State has argued in line with respondent No.2 and has sought for dismissal of the petition.
8. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
9. 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.
10. 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, 217, 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 BDA, but there being clear allegations that the alleged illegalities have been committed by 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.
11. In the light of the above discussion, petition is allowed.
The FIR registered against the petitioners in Cr.No.24/2014 is quashed. Since the complaint discloses commission of cognizable offences, 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