Karnataka High Court
Sri Siddaiah vs Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force on 5 December, 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7570 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
SRI. SIDDAIAH
S/O. LATE KARIAPPA
AGED 59 YEARS
(FORMER BDA & BBMP COMMISSIONER)
OCCUPATION :
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
(HIGHER EDUCATION)
M. S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.P.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR
SMT. VIJETHA R. NAIK)
AND:
1. BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE
IN THE OFFICE OF BBMP
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560001.
2. SRI.L. NAGESH
SON OF LAKSHMANA
NO. 783, HOGEBANDI GARDEN
BEGUR HULIMAVI ROAD
BENGALURU-560001. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.P.YOGANNA, HCGP FOR R1
SRI. ABHINAV R., ADV. FOR R2-ABSENT)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT
DATED 13.11.2012 LODGED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A AND B TO THE PETITION AND REGISTRATION
OF THE CASE IN CR. NO.203/2012 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
FOR OFFENCES U/S 119,217,218,181,197,420 R/W 34 OF
IPC, 1860 AND 320,321(B) OF K.M.C. ACT, 1976 AND 76(FFF)
OF KARNATAKA TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT, 1961
AND THE SAME IS NOT SUSTAINABLE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has sought for quashing the FIR and complaint dated 13.11.2012 lodged by second respondent before the first respondent (Annexure 'A') in Crime No.203/2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 119, 217, 218, 181, 197, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC, 1860 and Sections 320, 321(B) of K.M.C. Act, 1976 and 76 (FFF) of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader. Counsel for the respondent No.2 is absent. No representation. 3
3. The factual matrix of this case is that on the basis of the complaint filed by the second respondent L Nagesh, Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force Police registered a case in Crime No.203/2012. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.3 as BDA Commissioner. The complaint allegations are that there was a Revised Master Plan ('RMP' for short) - 2015 which was approved by Town and Country Planning Authority on 25.06.2007. In pursuance of the said Revised Master Plan, RMP Begur - Hulimavu Road connecting Bannerghatta was widened to 18 meters. Earlier M/s DLF Southern Homes Private Limited had obtained approved plan for developing land work order issued by BBMP only for S + 4 floors as the road was only 12 meters wide. It is on the basis of widening road from 12 meters to 24 meters, the said DLF Southern Homes Private Limited builders have got revised their proposed plan to develop the land to put up construction of 18 floors and they have already constructed more than 15 floors which clearly 4 demonstrates that the builders have managed to get the master plan revised for widening the road to 22 meters in collusion with the BBMP, BDA and other authorities at the instance of the then Minister for Higher Education Sri Aravinda Limbavali. The process of widening of road is in utter violation of Town and Country Planning Act, besides without authority of law which is done only to help M/s DLF Southern Homes Private Limited and Heera Nandani Developers.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was the Commissioner of BDA for the period from 2008-2010. According to the complaint averments the Revised Master Plan - 2015 was approved on 25.06.2007. Thus, the petitioner has not played any role in approval of the Revised Master Plan - 2015 for widening of the road and as such he cannot be saddled with the liability for any wrongful acts said to have been committed by the concerned competent authorities. 5
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader has referred to the information given by the Police Inspector, BMTF Police Station for filing objections. No doubt, the learned High Court Government Pleader has stated that the town planning member of BDA in his official noting dated 30.11.2009 had mentioned that the road width in front of the complainant's property is 10.5 meters only and it is not possible to consider the width of the road for sanctioned plan of 12.1 meters as requested by the complainant and to approve the revised sanction plan.
6. Even though the counsel for the respondent No.2 complainant has appeared before this Court has not filed any objections and has not placed any material on record to show that the petitioner being the Commissioner of BDA has placed a vital role in widening of the road by colluding with the other competent authorities, thereby he has committed the offences alleged against him. The 6 allegations made in the complaint on the face of it do not make out a case against the petitioner.
7. In a decision reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 in the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
" 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an 7 exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.8
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an 9 ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
In the present case even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken at a face value and accepted in its entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. As such, there are valid grounds for quashing the FIR.
8. For the foregoing discussion, I proceed to pass the following -
ORDER The criminal petition is allowed.
The FIR and complaint dated 13.11.2012 lodged by second respondent before the first respondent in Crime No.203/2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 119, 217, 218, 181, 197, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC, 1860 and Sections 320, 321(B) of K.M.C. Act, 1976 and 76 10 (FFF) of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, is quashed in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE ykl