IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4314 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
V. KRISHNA S/O. VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.12, I MAIN ROAD, ‘D’ CROSS, HOSAGUDDADAHALLI MYSORE ROAD BENGALURU – 26 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A.N. RADHAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY B.M.T.F. POLICE BENGALURU REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU – 560 001 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE IV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C. NO.21086/2015 DATED 14.8.2015 TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S.
420, 409, 468, 471, 120[B] OF IPC AND U/S. 441 OF K.M.C. 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 impugned order dated 14.08.2015 passed by learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C. No.21086/2015, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 420, 409, 468, 471, 120[B] of Indian Penal Code and under section 441 of K.M.C. Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Additional SPP for respondent.
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 go to show that on 2.11.2014, signature of the Commissioner was obtained on a fake resolution containing 13 points which was typed on a fake letterhead forging the signatures of the Information Director and other officers and thereby causing loss to BBMP running to crores of rupees by way of tax and fine for illegal advertisement and hoardings.
5. Learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent/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 charge sheet 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 420,409, 468, 471 r/w. 120[B] Indian Penal Code. Reliable material is produced to show forgery, misrepresentation and falsification of records leading to heavy loss to the BBMP. 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 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.21086/2015 is quashed. Since the complaint discloses commission of cognizable offence, the concerned Officer of BMTF who received the complaint or the concerned officer of BMTF dealing with the case is directed to take return of the charge sheet papers and 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 AN/-