IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4199 OF 2012 BETWEEN:
MR T LAKSHMAIAH S/O SRI THIPPANNA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS # 322, B-3, SHARAVATHI BLOCK NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560047. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: ANOOP HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI: S S SRINIVASA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE BENGALURU-560002.
2. DEEPAK DOREYAWAR THE CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU-560002. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R1; SRI: SREENIDHI.V., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.11.2009 PASSED BY THE IV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE ON HIS FILE IN C.C.NO.25684/2009 TAKING COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R This petition is filed praying to quash the impugned order dated 06.11.2009 passed by learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.25684/2009, whereby the learned magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 406, 409, 467, 468, 477-A, 420 r/w 120B of Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.2 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 by the petitioner. There are not even remote allegations 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 during the year 2006- 2007, accused Nos.1 and 2 forged and created fake documents of Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Pallike( for short ‘BBMP’) and transferred the funds belonging to BBMP to their private accounts and misappropriated the amount to the tune of Rs.54.00 lakhs and caused loss to BBMP. 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.
5. Learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1/State argued in support of the impugned action contending that the allegations made in the complaint prima facie disclose the commission of offences and the petitioner is specifically named in the charge sheet and 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 Sections 408, 409, 468, 477A, 420 r/w 120B Indian Penal Code. Reliable material is produced to show that there is misappropriation of funds of BBMP to the tune of Rs.54.00 lakhs during the year 2006-2007 which is allegedly committed by accused Nos.1 to 7. 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, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. The charge-sheet laid against the petitioner in C.C.No.25684/2009 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.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-