Sri Venkatarasa @ Venkatesh vs The Commissioner Bda on 28 October, 2013

[Cites 6, Cited by 20]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Venkatarasa @ Venkatesh vs The Commissioner Bda on 28 October, 2013

Bench: H.N. Nagamohan Das

                         1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

      DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013

                         BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS

                  WP NO 9062 OF 2012[GM-RES]

BETWEEN

SRI VENKATARASA @ VENKATESH,
Age:54 YEARS,
S/O ARASAPPA
R/AT NO.186, RAILWAY STATION ROAD,
KENGERI UPANAGARA,
DR B RAMBEDKAR CIRCLE,
BANGALORE -560 060.
                                       ... PETITIONER
(By Sri K.G.SADASHIVAIAH FOR
M/S. S & S ASSOCIATES)

AND

1.THE COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
KPW EXTENSION, KUMARA PARK WEST,
SHESHADRIPURAM,
BANGALORE 560 020.

2.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION,
REP.BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BANGALORE 560 020
                                       ... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri RAMANJANEYA GOWDA, ADV. FOR R1, SPP FOR R2)
                              2




THIS W.P. FILED U/A 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND PENDING BEFORE THE 8TH
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METRO POLITIAN MAGISTRATE IN CRIME
FIR NO.141/2010 DATED 19.7.2010 AS PER ANNEXURE-L AND
SUBSEQUENT CC NO.4981/2011 dated 10.12.2010 AS PER
ANNEXURE-M.

This petition is coming on for preliminary hearing 'B' group, this
day the court made the following:

                         ORDER

In this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.4981/2011 arising out of Cr.No.141/2010 on the file of 8th ACMM, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC.

2. Petitioner contends that as early as in the year 1996, the respondent BDA allotted a site measuring 20 x 30 near Kengeri. In the year 2008 due to natural calamity of heavy rains the hut where the petitioner was residing came to be collapsed and in the process he lost all the documents given by the respondent BDA in respect of the site allotted to him. Subsequently, the petitioner gave an application to the 3 respondent on 3.3.2008 requesting to execute the registered sale deed. Acting on the application made by the petitioner, the respondent BDA conducted a spot mahazar, held an enquiry and obtained thumb impression of the petitioner to the Mahazar. Entertaining a doubt with regard to the claim of the petitioner, BDA referred the thumb impression of the petitioner on the application and on the Mahazar to an expert. On receipt of the report it was found that the thumb impression do not tally. Consequently the criminal proceedings are initiates in C.C. No.4981/2011. Aggrieved by this the petitioner is before this court.

3. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire petition papers.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is an illiterate, he has not filled the form and the LTM contained on the application may be a mistake. These are all matter of evidence required to be put to test in the course of trial. 4 This court by exercising powers under Section 482 CR.PC cannot assess and appreciate the evidence available on record or the version of anyone of the parties to the proceedings. Keeping open all contentions, this petition is hereby rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE.

DKB

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court