Karnataka High Court
M/S Keppel Puruvankara vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2018
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2530/2015
BETWEEN:
M/s Keppel Puruvankara
Development Pvt. Ltd.,
Having its registered office at No.130/1
Ulsoor Road
Bangalore - 560 042.
Represented by its
Company Secretary Amrita Jaiswal. ...PETITIONER
(By Sri. C.V.Nagesh, Senior Counsel a/w
Sri Raghavendra K., Adv.)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
By its Station House Officer
B M T F Police Station
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Tahasildar
Bangalore South Taluk
Bangalore - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. H.S.Chandramouli, SPP.)
2
This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., praying to quash the FIR in Crime No.16/2015
registered by the BMTF Police Station, Bangalore as against
the petitioner institution for offences which are made penal
under Section 192(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act
and under Sections 353, 379, 447, 420, 120(B) r/w 34 of IPC
which FIR has been filed before the court of the C.M.M.,
Bangalore City.
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying the Court to quash FIR in crime No.16/2015 registered by BMTF Police Station, Bengaluru as against the petitioner-accused for the offences which are made penal under Section 192(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and under Sections 353, 379, 447, 420, 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the petition are that the petitioner-accused is one of the premier 3 Real Estate Developers. It had undertaken and successfully completed several well known and reputed projects not only in Bengaluru City but also in the other cities across the country. The projects undertaken and executed by the petitioner-accused has provided superior community living of finest standards in terms of quality, cost effectiveness and customer delight. On being entrusted with the work of development of a certain property which is located in Puttenahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, the petitioner-accused discharged its obligations to the supreme satisfaction of one and all concerned in the matter. It is further contended in the petition that the structures put up by the petitioner-accused was certainly in terms of the agreement, and the terms of the license granted and in accordance with the plan sanctioned by the authority concerned. It has taken utmost care and has not chosen to violate the 4 provisions governing the construction of the building over the property and the terms of sanction accorded by the authority concerned. On successful completion of the project, the petitioner-accused has also delivered possession of the property so developed to the concerned who had become entitled for the same. The possession came to be delivered some time during the year 2010. It is also contended that on 9.4.2015, respondent No.2 filed a complaint before respondent No.1 alleging that a compound has been constructed to protect the property developed and to prevent the ingress and egress of unauthorized persons into the building and while constructing the compound wall, an encroachment has been made into the tank bed area which belong to the State Government and that the occupants of the flats in the apartments constructed by the petitioner are allowing the dirty water flow into the tank and that the authorities attached to the 5 jurisdictional revenue department have on 17.4.2015 demolished the compound wall that had been put up while making an encroachment into the tank bed area and that on the morning of 19.4.2015 i.e., two days later to the demolition of the compound wall, they were able to notice a barbed wire fencing being put at the very place where the compound had been put up earlier and which compound wall had been demolished and therefore, action be taken against the petitioner.
3. I have heard the arguments of learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner-accused and learned SPP for the respondents.
4. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner- accused submitted that the alleged offence is under Section 192(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and proper procedure has not been followed before 6 proceeding in the matter. In that connection, he relied upon the order dated 24.2.2015 passed in W.P. No.49183/2012 and connected petitions. the learned Senior Advocate submitted that the there are also other legal infirmities in the case of the complainant apart from the factual aspects. He further submitted that the petitioner-accused filed writ petition No.17355/2015 wherein a Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 25.4.2015 giving direction to the revenue authority to conduct survey and to ascertain whether there is encroachment or not. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner conducted survey and he came to the conclusion that there is no encroachment at all. Hence, the learned Senior Advocate submitted that in view of this, the proceedings initiated are baseless and submitted to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused. 7
5. Per contra, learned SPP justifying the jurisdictional aspect submitted that the petition may be disposed of. It is his contention that there are other offences affecting the government officers in discharging the duties. So far as such offences are concerned, the petition cannot be disposed of on merits.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the petition. I have also perused FIR and the complaint, a copy of which is produced along with the petition. I have also considered the oral submissions made by the learned Senior Advocate so also the learned SPP.
7. Perused the order dated 24.2.2015 passed in W.P. No.49183/2012 and connected petitions and also the order dated 25.4.2015 passed in W.P. No.17355/2015 by the Division Bench of this Court. I have also perused the report submitted by the Assistant 8 Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub Division, Bengaluru.
8. In the report, the Assistant Commissioner has stated as under:
" On perusal of the available document at Annexure-H, it reveals that there is no as such encroachment in the lake area by the petitioner company be it as it be, and the affidavit filed by the appellant company stating that they will construct the compound wall in consonance with the boundaries as marked by the surveyors and also in consonance with the special survey and also the survey sketch submitted and order of this authority in the instant proceedings vide NCR/CR.06/2015-16 dated 3.7.2015 and after ensuring that there is no as such encroachment abutting the subject land in this appeal.
In the result, the appeal is liable to be allowed."9
9. Therefore, perusing all these materials and the legal aspect involved in this case, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed and the complaint and FIR registered as against the petitioner- accused are liable to be quashed.
10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the FIR and complaint in respect of the petitioner-accused are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cs/-