Karnataka High Court
Sir Mayanna vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 April, 2017
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF APRIL 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No.3253 OF 2017(GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
Sri. Mayanna,
S/o. Late Narayanappa,
Aged about 45 years,
Residing at No.8/A,
Opp. to Government School,
Near Mahaveer Jewelers,
Katriguppe, Bangalore - 560 05.
... Petitioner
(By Shri. M. S. Bhagwat, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by Sub Inspector of Police,
B. M. T. F. Police Station,
B. B. M. P. Building, N R Square,
Bangalore.
2. Sri. Robert,
S/o. Muniswamy David,
2
Aged about 37 years,
Rajiv Gandhi Colony,
Queens Road,
Bangalore - 560 052.
... Respondents
(By Shri. Vijayakumar Majage, Additional
State Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1,
Shri. V. Srinivas, Advocate for Respondent No.2)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the constitution of India read with section 482 of the code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for the records.
Quash the impugned compliant in P.C.R.No.8090/2016 lodged
by the R-2 vide Annx-A first information report in Crime
No.03/2017 registered by the R-1 vide Annx-B and all further
proceedings thereon vide Annx-C, pending on the file of the IV
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in so far
as the petitioner is concerned.
This Writ Petition coming on for Final Hearing this day,
the court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The counsel would point out that at the instance of the complainant, the matter has been taken up by the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force (BMTF) which would have no jurisdiction to investigate the alleged offences punishable under the provisions 3 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) and in this regard places reliance on a judgment of this court rendered in a batch of petitions in Crl.P.5340/2012 and connected cases, which have been disposed of by a considered order, while holding that the BMTF would have no power to register and investigate cases exclusively alleging offences punishable under the IPC. Hence, the learned Counsel would submit that on that proposition, the petition would have to be allowed.
Though the learned counsel for the de facto complainant would contend that it was the initiative of the petitioner on the report submitted by the Ulsoorgate Police Station to the court below that the matter would fall within the jurisdiction of the BMTF that the petitioner had filed a memo seeking that the matter be referred to the BMTF. It is this wrong turn in the face that has resulted in the BMTF entering the picture. The court below has noticed that the offences alleged are only under the provisions of the IPC and by virtue of the decision this court, 4 which has not been overturned, the BMTF would have no jurisdiction. Though the learned Counsel for the de facto complainant brings to the attention of this court a notification empowering the BMTF even to investigate offences under the IPC, the notification cannot override the decision of this court and therefore it shall be ignored.
The petition is summarily allowed. The impugned complaint in PCR 8090/2016 lodged by the second respondent and the FIR in Crime No.3/2017 lodged at the instance of the BMTF stands quashed. However, it is made clear that respondent no.2 is granted liberty to approach the court below to take up proceedings from the stage it was referred to the BMTF and proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv