Karnataka High Court
Sri K Muniraju vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 July, 2022
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
CRL.P No. 8699 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8699 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SRI K.MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DEVASANDRA VILLAGE
KR PURAM HOBLI
BENGALURU - 560 036.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDESH J.CHOUTA, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI KARTHIK V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY B.M.T.F. POLICE
BBMP, J.C.ROAD
Digitally signed
by PADMAVATHI
BK
BENGALURU - 560 001
Location: High REPRESENTED BY
Court of
Karnataka STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU -560 001
2. SRI N.R.RAMESH
EX- CORPORATOR AND
EX-RULING PARTY LEADER
-2-
CRL.P No. 8699 of 2021
BURHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HEAD OFFICE
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1
R2 - SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.21491/2018 (CR.NO.17/2017) ON THE FILE OF THE
CMM COURT, AT BENGALURU THE SAID PROCEEDINGS SO
FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.21491/2018 registered for the offence punishable under Section 441 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'), pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.17/2017.
2. Heard Sri Sandesh J. Chouta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. -3- CRL.P No. 8699 of 2021 K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by plethora of judgments, whereby, inadvertence in obtaining permission from the hands of the learned Magistrate for registering an offence, which is non- cognizable. The allegation in the case at hand is for an offence punishable under Section 441 of the Act, which is admittedly non-cognizable and the record would reveal that the permission is not obtained from the learned Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 441 of the Act. Apart from the fact that no permission is being taken from the learned Magistrate, the proceedings would be vitiated.
4. The other issue is, whether the BMTF Police can file a charge sheet against the petitioner, notwithstanding that they are not declared to be a police station under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? The -4- CRL.P No. 8699 of 2021 said issue is no longer res integra, as a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.5340/2012 and connected matters disposed on 10.10.2013, interpreting the very same issue has declared that the BMTF is not a police station.
5. The relevant para of the order in Crl.P.No.5340/2012 and connected matters, is extracted:
"27) In the cases on hand, the allegations made in the reports lodged by the private individuals disclosed only commission of non-
cognizable offence/s. It was for that reason only, the officer-in-charge of BMTF Police Station submitted reports to the jurisdictional Magistrate and sought permission to investigate. The jurisdictional Magistrate in all such cases has accorded permission and it was thereafter the cases were registered and investigation was taken-up. In none of these cases, the informants approached the Magistrate seeking a direction to the police for investigation. Thus, the procedures adopted by BMTF police in submitting reports to the jurisdictional Magistrate and seeking permission, are contrary to the provisions of -5- CRL.P No. 8699 of 2021 Section 155 of Cr.P.C. and the permission accorded thereon by the Magistrate on such requisitions, are without authority of law. Therefore, the entire procedures adopted by the BMTF police in registering the case are contrary to the provisions of Section 155 of Cr.P.C. and also opposed to the principles of law laid-down in the aforesaid decision. In view of this, the orders taking cognizance on the charge sheets filed are vitiated, therefore, the prosecutions launched are liable to be quashed. Therefore, I answer Point No.2 accordingly. Regarding Point No.3:
28) In the light of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, I do not think that it is necessary to record any opinion on the question as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was condition precedent for the court taking cognizance of the offences. Therefore, I refrain from expressing any opinion on this aspect of the matter."-6- CRL.P No. 8699 of 2021
Therefore, the answer to the issue that the BMTF is not declared as a police and filing of charge sheet by them, is untenable. In the light of both the issues stands covered by the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as extracted hereinabove, the petition deserves to succeed.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER i. The Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.21491/2018, pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, stand quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NVJ