Karnataka High Court
B Prabhakar vs The Bangalore Metropoliton Task Force on 3 June, 2019
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JUNE, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3034/2014
BETWEEN:
1. B.Prabhakar
S/o Byachappa,
Aged about 40 years,
Working as Executive Engineer,
Rajaji Nagara Division at BBMP,
R/o # 245, 3rd main Road,
Teachers Lay-out, Nagarabhavi,
Bangalore-560 072.
2. B.Ramesh,
S/o M.Bangarappa,
Working as Assistant Executive Engineer,
At Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike,
O/o AEE, Chandra-Layout Sub-Divisional,
BBMP Office, 4th Main Road, M.C.Lay-out,
Bangalore-560 040.
... Petitioners
(By Sri.Kashinath J.D., Advocate)
AND:
1. The Bangalore Metropoliton Task Force,
BBMP Premises, N.R.Squire,
Bangalore-560 002.
Rep. by
State Public Prosecutor ... Respondent
(By Smt.Namitha Mahesh, B.G., HCGP)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to quash the FIR filed in Crime No.48/2012 on
the complaint of BMTF, for the offences p/u/s 217 of IPC and
321-B of KMC Act and also quash the subsequent filing of final
report/charge sheet in above Crime in C.C.No.24729/2012 the
respondent police, pending on the file of the C.M.M.,
Bangalore as per Annexure-A and B to petition.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking to quash the FIR in Cr.No.48/2012 registered for the offences punishable under Section 217 of Indian Penal Code and Section 321(B) of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP appearing for the respondent.
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 3 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 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. Further, on merits, learned counsel would submit that the allegations made in the complaint, even if, accepted on their face value would go to show that the Nagarika Vedike has submitted the representation alleging that the Smt.Vandana Bhut has illegally constructed a house violating the sanction plan and encroaching the public road. On receipt of the complaint, the respondent-BMTF forwarded the same to the Director, Town and Country Planning, to take appropriate action in this regard. The respondent have registered the FIR in Crime No.48/2012 against the petitioners and two others alleging offence under Section 217 of IPC. The grievance of 4 the complainant even if accepted uncontroverted would disclose that the dispute in question is civil in nature and therefore, invocation of criminal process by the respondents is illegal and is liable to be quashed.
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 offence alleged therein and therefore, there is no illegality in registering the case.
7. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
8. 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 5 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.
9. Coming to merits of the contentions urged by the parties, a reading of the complaint prima-facie discloses the ingredients of offences under Section 217 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 accused No.1 in collusion with the Government officials, at this juncture, it cannot be said that the said allegations are 6 not sufficient to probe the role of Government officials involved in the alleged incident.
10. However, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners herein are not named in the FIR and therefore the registration of FIR against the petitioners is unwarranted, is well-founded. None of the petitioners have been named in the complaint. Respondent has not conducted any preliminary inquiry to ascertain the role of the petitioners in the alleged acts. Therefore there was no basis for naming the petitioners as accused in the FIR. Having regard to the nature of the allegations made in the complaint, without there being clear allegations showing the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged acts, registration of FIR against the petitioner would be illegal and abuse of process of Court. To this extent, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners deserves to be accepted.
11. In the light of the above discussion, petition is allowed. The FIR registered against the petitioners in Cr.No.48/2012 for the alleged offence punishable under 7 Section 321-B of Karnataka Municipal Act and Section 217 of IPC 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 SB