IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2361 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. PRABHAKAR, S/O NANJAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.1282, BEML MAIN ROAD, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BENGALURU.
2. PRABHU, S/O MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.9, 9TH CROSS, S.P. EXTENSION, 2ND CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI A.N. RADHA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BENGALURU METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL.SPP) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO. 8012/2013, TAKING COGNIZANCE, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss. 409, 217, 214, 109 OF IPC AND UNDER SEC.321(B) OF KMC ACT, DATED 09.05.2013 AND QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This petition is arising out of Crime No.55/2013 registered by Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force (for short ‘BMTF’) for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 217, 214 and 109 of Indian Penal Code and Section 321(B) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act. The BMTF, after investigation, have filed charge sheet and a case has been registered in C.C.No.8012/2013 before the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, against the petitioners.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the respondent - State.
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, 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. He further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not attract the ingredients of any criminal offence committed by the petitioners. There are not even remote allegations against the petitioners as to the manner in which the petitioners have committed the alleged illegalities. The allegations made in the complaint, even if, accepted on their face value would go to show that accused No.3/Sunilkumar Solanki has constructed a five floor commercial-cum-residential complex located at Sheshadripuram, Bengaluru. It is alleged that the said complex has not been granted proper approvals that are required for its development and various irregularities and illegalities were noticed, wherein with the active connivance and in collusion with the competent authorities within the BBMP, necessary approval in the development of residential portion of the said complex has not been obtained. The said allegations do not constitute any criminal offences insofar as the present petitioners are concerned and hence, the implication of the petitioners in the alleged offences is patently illegal and amounts to abuse of process of Court.
5. Learned HCGP appearing for respondent /State has argued in support of the impugned action contending that the allegations made in the complaint prima facie constitute the offences alleged against the petitioners therein and therefore, there is no illegality in registering the case against the petitioners.
6. 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 409, 217, 214 and 109 of 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, but there being clear allegations that the alleged illegalities have been committed by the accused No.3/ Sunilkumar Solanki 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.
In the light of the above discussion, petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.8012/2013 pending on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru 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. 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 ca