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. 2164 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
1. Sri Ziaulla Sheriff S/o Gaffoor Shariff Aged about 72 years 2. Mr Yunus Zia S/o Ziaulla Sheriff Aged: 43 years 3. Mrs. Salima Sheriff W/o Ziaulla Sheriff Aged: 65 years Petitioners 1 to 3 are residing at “A1-Barka”, Golden Enclave Old Airport Road Bangalore – 560 017.
4. Mrs. Sayeeda Hina Ahmed W/o Ahmed R/o Warthhalli Estates Chickamagalore Taluk and District.
(By Sri Suhas T L – Advocate for Sri Veeranna G Tigadi - Advocate) …Petitioners AND:
1. State of Karnataka (Through B.M.T.F. Police Station) Represented by the High Court Public Prosecutor Bangalore.
2. Anil Kalgi S/o Not stated in the complaint Or in the complaint and the petitioners are not aware Age 41 years R/o 61, 5th Floor O Block Platinum City H M T Road, Yeshwanthpur Bangalore – 22.
...Respondents (By Sri. Vijayakumar Majage Additional SPP for R-1; Sri Deshraj – Advocate for R-2 - Absent) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to quash the complaint dated 25.3.2013 lodged by the 2nd Respondent and further be pleased to quash the FIR in Cr. No.61/2013 registered by the B.M.T.F., Police Station for offences P/U.S 409, 420 and 192(A), 192(B) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act .
This Criminal petition 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.61/2013 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 192(A) and 192(B) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is absent. Perused the records.
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 allegations made in the complaint, even if, accepted on their face value 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.
5. Refuting the above submissions, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1 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 and has sought for dismissal of the petition.
Considered the submissions and perused the records.
6. 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, it has been 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.
7. Coming to the merits of the contentions urged by the parties, the material allegations made in the FIR is that M/s.Sheriff Constructions and its partners and M/s.Nacons, Platinum City have encroached the Government and public lands and have committed breach of trust and cheating the public and the Government in connivance with the Government officials.
8. 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 petitioners 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.61/2013 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.
Insofar as offences under Sections 192(A) and 192(B) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act are concerned, liberty is reserved to the complainant to approach the concerned authorities under the Act for appropriate action.
Sd/-
JUDGE DKB