Karnataka High Court
Smt. Lakshmidevi vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 December, 2018
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar
1
CRL.P. NO.5927/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5927 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI
W/O. RADHAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL
DC OFFICE (RURAL)
BANGALORE
R/AT NO.30, 36TH CROSS
9TH A MAIN, 5TH BLOCK
JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 058 ... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR
BMTF POLICE STATION, BBMP
BANGALORE - 560 065 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
FIR AND CHARGE SHEET DATED 18.07.2013 IN CRIME
NO.151/2012 DATED 27.07.2012 IN (C.C.NO.12095/2013) AT
(ANNEXURE - A AND B) FILED BY THE RESPONDENT ON THE FILE
OF THE CMM COURT, BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2
CRL.P. NO.5927/2014
ORDER
Heard Shri A. Nagarajappa, learned advocate for the petitioner and Shri I.S. Pramod Chandra, learned SPP-II for the State.
2. Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force ('BMTF' for short) registered FIR No.151/2012 on 27.07.2012 for offence punishable under Section 270 of IPC. After investigation, they have filed charge sheet against petitioner and others.
3. Shri A. Nagarajappa, submits that in view of the law laid down by this Court in Dr. S.M. Kalligudd & others Vs. State of Karnataka & others [1998 (1) Kar.L.J 252] and followed in subsequent cases, BMTF is not competent to proceed with the investigation if the FIR discloses commission of offence only under the Indian Penal Code. He also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in G.D.Jayram and another Vs. The State by Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force Police Station (CRL.P.No.5340/2012 and connected matters decided on 3 CRL.P. NO.5927/2014 10.10.2013), wherein the decision in Dr. S.M. Kalligudd (supra) has also been referred to.
4. In view of the law laid down by this Court, BMTF could not have proceeded further with the FIR lodged alleging commission of offences only under IPC. Consequently, all proceedings are vitiated. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and all proceedings from and after registration of FIR No.151/2012 pending on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are quashed.
5. In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.2/2014 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE AV