Karnataka High Court
Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force ... vs S.M. Alex on 1 September, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3126 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
Bangalore Metropolitan
Task Force Police Station - 560 001.
...Petitioner
(By Sri. V.M.Sheelavanth, S.P.P.,)
AND:
1. S.M.Alex,
S/o late Sri.M.M.Alexander,
Aged about 56 years,
R/at No.35, 2nd Cross,
D' Costa Square,
Cooke Town,
Bangalore - 560 084.
2. Rani M Alex,
W/o S.M.Alex,
Aged about 52 years,
R/at No.35, 2nd Cross,
D' Costa Square,
Cooke Town,
Bangalore - 560 084.
...Respondents
(By Sri.Vivek Holla, Advocate)
-2-
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying to quash the proceedings/to set aside
judgment and order dated 12.12.2013 in Crime No.10/11
by the IV Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore by allowing this Crl.RP.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission,
'through video conference' this day, the Court made
the following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the complainant- petitioner under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment and order dated 12.12.2013 in Crime No.10/2011 by the IV A.C.C.M Court, Bengaluru by allowing the Crime Petition.
2. I have heard the learned SPP Sri V.M. Sheelavanth for petitioner and Sri. Vivek Holla for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the BMTF Police filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 alleging the offences under Section 192(A)(1)(2)(3) & (5) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,1964 and under Sections 420, 406, 424, 197, 120(B), 175, 201 -3- r/w 34 of IPC and also Rule 10(2)(I) of Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968 and after investigation, the charge sheet has been filed. Thereafter, on perusing the charge sheet and the entire material, the trial court held that there are no sufficient grounds for taking cognizance for the alleged offences and hence, the impugned order came to be passed. Challenging the same, the State is before this Court.
3. The main ground urged by the learned SPP are that when the notice was issued by the Investigating Officer to produce the documents, the respondents- accused did not produce the documents as contemplated under the law and in the circumstances of the said fact, the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed. The Trial Court without looking into factual matrix of the case ought to have taken the cognizance instead of passing the impugned order.
-4-
4. It is his further submission that not taking cognizance by the Trial Court itself is improper, illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. It is his further submission that the petitioner has made out a prima- facie case to issue process as against the respondents. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to set aside the impugned order.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents vehemently argued and submitted that no case has been made out under the Act. Even if a case has been made out, the principles of natural justice demands that the respondents ought to have given an opportunity to have their say in the matter. Without giving any opportunity to show cause notice, only on the basis of the allegations the charge sheet has been filed and even the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Lalitha Sastry Vs. State of Karnataka Represented by its Secretary Department of Parliamentary Affairs and Legislation and Others -5- reported in ILR 2008 KAR 4520, has been observed that the principles of natural justice demands that the respondents ought to have given an opportunity to have their say. This principle has also not been followed.
6. It is his further submission that Section 192(A), 192(A)(1)(2)(3) & (5) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,1964 stipulates the procedure under which show cause notice has been given calling upon to file their objections within 15 days. If no objection is received from the Authorities then under such circumstances, they can proceed. Even the said procedure has not been followed.
7. It is his further submission that the Tahasildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru has passed an order dated 13.11.2014 contending that the said proceedings have been dropped and as such, the continuation of the proceedings in this case is not necessary and whatever the impugned order which has -6- been passed is justifiable. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
8. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
9. On perusal of the records, though the proceedings have been initiated under Section 192(A)(1)(2)(3) & (5) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,1964 while initiating the proceedings the principle laid down in the case of Smt. Lalitha Sastry quoted supra has not been followed and no opportunity has been given.
10. Be that as it may. Even on perusal of Annexure R-3 dated 13.11.2014, it indicates that further proceedings so initiated in this behalf have been dropped by virtue of Annexure-R3. When that being the case, further proceedings do not arise at all. I have also carefully and cautiously gone through the impugned -7- order passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court after taking into consideration the statement of witnesses and the other records, has come to the conclusion that there is no prima-facie and sufficient ground for any of the offence alleged in the complaint. In that light, the proceedings have been dropped.
11. Taking into consideration of the above said factual matrix of the case on hand, the petitioner has not made out any good ground so as to interfere with the impugned order of the Trial Court. The impugned order deserves to be confirmed.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
I.A.No.1/2016 is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE SSD