Karnataka High Court
Smt Geetha Ramesh vs State Of Karnataka on 4 June, 2019
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2665/2013
C/w
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2550/2013 & 7925/2013
IN CRL.P.No.2665/2013:
BETWEEN:
Smt. Geetha Ramesh,
W/o. Ramesh,
Aged about 60 years,
R/at No.9, 8th Main,
16th Cross, Muthyalanagar,
Bengaluru - 560 069. ... Petitioner
(By Sri. Suraj Mutnal, Advocate for
Sri. H.M.Bhanu, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Through Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force,
Represented by its
State Public Prosecutor,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. Smt. Ushadevi,
Revenue Officer,
Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force,
Bengaluru - 560 001. ... Respondents
(By Sri. Chetan Desai, HCGP for R1,
R2 served and unrepresented)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to quash the complaint dated 20.04.2013
lodged by the 2nd respondent before the 1st respondent and
registered the case in FIR No/Crime No.77/2013 by the 1st
respondent police, the same is pending on the file of the
CMM Court, Bangalore City, for the offences P/U/S 120(B),
119, 167, 218, 406, 420 r/w 34 of IPC and 192(A)(2)(7),
KLR Act 1964.
IN CRL.P.No.2550/2013:
BETWEEN:
Sri. K.S. Prabhakar,
S/o. K.S. Achar,
Age: 59 years,
Occ: Managing Director,
Karnataka Urban
Water Supply and Drainage Board,
Jala Bhavan, Bennerghatta Road,
Jayanagar, Bengaluru - 560 029.
(Wrongly mentioned as S.K.Prabhakar in FIR)
... Petitioner
(By Sri. Chandrashekar P., Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Through Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force,
Represented by its
State Public Prosecutor,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. Smt. Ushadevi
Revenue Officer,
Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force,
3
Bengaluru - 560 001. ... Respondents
(By Sri. Chetan Desai, HCGP for R1;
R2 served and unrepresented)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to quash the complaint dated 20.04.2013
lodged by the 2nd respondent before the 1st respondent and
registration of the case in FIR No./Crime No.77/2013 by the
1st respondent police for offences under Sections 120(B),
119, 167, 218, 406, 420 R/w 34 of IPC and
Sec.192(A)(2)(7) of KLR Act pending on the file of the
CMM., Bangalore City.
IN CRL.P.No.7925/2013:
BETWEEN:
M. Srinivas,
S/o. Muniswamappa,
Aged about 72 years,
Occupation: Social Service &
Former M.L.A. of
Rajarajeshwarinagar Assembly Constituency,
Residing at No.8, 4th Cross,
7th Block, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru - 560 082. ... Petitioner
(By Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by
Bangalore Metropolitan
Task Force Police Station,
Bangalore City,
Represented by its
4
Special Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. Smt. Ushadevi
Aged: Major,
Occupation: Tahsildar/
Revenue Officer,
Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force,
Bengaluru City,
Bengaluru - 560 001. ... Respondents
(By Sri. Chetan Desai, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to quash the investigation in Cr.No.77/2013
of respondent No.1 BMTF Police, which has been registered
alleging commission of offence P/U/S 120(B), 119, 167,
218, 406, 420 R/w 34 of IPC and Sec.192(A)(2)(7) of
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 pending before the CMM
Court, Bengaluru, in so far as the petitioner/accused No.1 is
concerned.
These Criminal petitions coming on for Admission, this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
These petitions are filed seeking to quash the complaint dated 20.04.2013 lodged by 2nd respondent before the 1st respondent and registration of the case in Crime No.77/2013 by the 1st respondent police/ Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force (for short BMTF) for the offences 5 punishable under Sections 120(B), 119, 167, 218, 406, 420 R/w 34 of IPC and Sec.192(A)(2)(7) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1. R2 is served and unrepresented.
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 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 6 initiated against the petitioners being without authority of law is stark abuse of process of court.
4. They further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not attract the ingredients of any criminal offence by the petitioners. There are not even remote allegations against the petitioners as to the manner in which the petitioners are involved in the alleged illegalities. The allegations made in the complaint, even if, accepted on their face value would go to show that during the year 1983, accused No.1 (petitioner in Crl.P.No.7925/2013) was the President of Bagar Hukum Committee and had allotted lands in Sy.No.46 of Kaggalipura Village, Uttarhalli Hobli and inspite of non- alienation period of 15 years, on 13.01.1995, accused No.1 registered 25 acres of land in the said survey, in the name of his son. After enquiry, the Revenue Department in exercise of power under Rule 27 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules considered the aforesaid case as 'special case' and ordered for re-grant of the said land to the original 7 applicants based on the recommendations made by accused No.2 (petitioner in Crl.P.No.2550/2013), Secretary to Government, Revenue Department and accused No.3 (petitioner in Crl.P.No.2665/2013) Deputy Secretary to Government, Revenue Department. These allegations do not constitute any criminal offence insofar as the present petitioners are concerned and hence, the implication of the petitioners in the alleged offence is patently illegal and amounts to abuse of process of Court. Further, they submit that insofar as offences under Sections 192(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, this court has taken a view that without issuing prior notice to the petitioners, registration of criminal case cannot be sustained. In support of their submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Lalitha Sastry Vs. State of Karnataka - ILR 2008 KAR 4520.
5. Learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1/State has argued in support of the impugned action contending that the allegations made in the complaint prima 8 facie constitute the offence alleged therein and the petitioners are specifically named in the FIR, therefore, there is no illegality in registering the case.
6. Considered the submission and perused the petitions.
7. Insofar as the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners 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 9 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 Section 192(A) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. However the 'BMTF' which registered the case, having had no jurisdiction to register the FIR, in the view of the decisions of this Court and as well as the law laid down in Lalitha Sastry's case, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.
9. In the light of the above discussion, petitions are allowed. The FIR registered against the petitioners in Cr.No.77/2013 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 119, 167, 218, 406, 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 192(A)(2)(7) of the Karnataka 10 Land Revenue Act is quashed. Liberty is reserved to the revenue officials to take action in accordance with law for the offences, if any, committed in violation of Sections 192(A) (2) (7) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and liberty is also reserved to the complainant to take further action on the same cause of action by making complaint against any of the accused by making out ingredients of the offences, in accordance with law.
10. 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 11 material evidence surfaces, investigating agency is at liberty to proceed against such persons in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE SV