IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6579 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
SMT SUMITHRA W/O VINAYKUMAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.M-117, 5TH MAIN 7TH CROSS, LAKSHMINARAYANAPURA BENGALURU-560 021. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: PRABHUGOUD B TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BENGALURU METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE POLICE (BMTF) REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001 2. R.PRAKASH SRI RANGA MARUTHI NILAYA, NO.29, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, RANGANATHAPURA KAMAKSHIPALYA BENGALURU-560 079. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.12057/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF C.M.M., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 192(A) AND 192(B) OF KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT REGISTERED BY THE BENGALURU METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE POLICE, BENGALURU AND THE PETITIONER BE ACQUITTED FROM THE CHARGES ALLEGED THEREIN.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R This petition is filed praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.12057/2015 registered by Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force (for short BMTF) for the offences punishable under Sections 192(A) and 192(B) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner or to investigate into the alleged offences and hence the proceedings initiated against the petitioner 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 petitioner. There are not even remote allegations against the petitioner as to the manner in which the petitioner has committed the alleged illegalities. The allegations made in the complaint, even if, accepted on their face value would go to show that by encroaching upon Balaiahaina lake, a school by name ‘Mythri School’ has been constructed illegally. The said allegations do not constitute any criminal offence insofar as the present petitioner is concerned and hence, the implication of the petitioner in the alleged offence is patently illegal and amounts to abuse of process of Court. Further, he submits that insofar as offences under Sections 192(A) and 192(B) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, this court has taken a view that without issuing prior notice to the petitioner, 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 HCGP 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 petitioner is specifically named in the charge sheet. 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 petitioner touching the jurisdiction of BMTF to lay the chargesheet 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 offences is concerned, a perusal of the charge sheet prime facie indicates commission of offences punishable under Section 192(A) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Reliable material is produced to show that by encroaching upon the lake and lake bed, various constructions have come up and a school by name ‘Mythri school’ has been constructed by encroaching upon Balaiahiana lake, ward No.103. However the ‘BMTF’ which registered the case and laid the charge sheet in the matter having had no jurisdiction to lay the charge sheet, in the view of the decisions of this Court and as well as the law laid down in Lalitha Sastry’s case, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.
9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.12057/2014 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 192(A) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act is quashed. Liberty is reserved to the revenue officials to take action in accordance with law for the offence, if any, committed in violation of Section 192(A) 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 by making out ingredients of the offence, in accordance with law.
In view disposal of the main matter, I.A.No.1/2016 for stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-