Karnataka High Court
Mr Ananthaswamy vs Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force on 29 January, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR
WRIT PETITION NOS.32255-61 OF 2013 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
1. MR ANANTHASWAMY,
S/O CKLHIKKAHONNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE.
2. MR LOKESH M,
S/O MAHADEVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
STORM WATER DRAIN (EAST)
BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE.
3. MR SHYAM SUNDAR,
S/O N BALARAJ
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
STORM WATER DRAIN (EAST)
BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
4. MR CHANDRASHEKAR,
S/O LATE BASAVALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
2
STORM WATER DRAIN (EAST)
BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
5. MR M H GOVINDEGOWDA
S/O H HONNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
STORM WATER DRAIN (SOUTH-1)
BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
6. MR TANVEER AHMED,
S/O ABDUL MAJEED
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
STORM WATER DRAIN (SOUTH-1)
BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
7. MR M VENKATESH,
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
JUNIOR ENGINEER
STORM WATER DRAIN (SOUTH-1)
BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
ALL THE AFORESAID
HAVING THEIR OFFICE ADDRESS
9TH FLOOR, JAYANAGAR
SHOPPING COMPLEX, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560011. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRATEEK RATH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI MANU KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE,
3
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
BMTF POLICE STATION,
BRUHAT BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA,
PALIKE, N R SQUARE,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. MR UMESH S,
ADVOCATE,
PRESIDENT ADVOCATES
ASSOCIATION,
FIVE YEARS LAW COURSE,
NO.19, 1ST FLOOR,
18TH CROSS, CUBBONPET
BANGALORE -560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HONNAPPA, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI I GIRIRAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
****
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE 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 RECORDS IN
CRIME NO.103/2013 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE 4TH
ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE
CITY. QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO. DT.15.07.2013 VIDE
ANNX-A FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1-BMTF, ON THE
FILES OF THE HON'BLE 4TH ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PREMILINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the FIR in Crime No.103/2013 dated 15.07.2013, registered by respondent No.1 - Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force Police (hereinafter referred to as 'BMTF Police' for the sake of brevity), pending on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City and also to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.103/2013.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1. Counsel for respondent No.2 is absent. No representation.
3. The facts leading to this petition are that on the complaint filed by one Sri. Umesh, President, Advocates' Association, Five year law course, Bengaluru, the respondent No.1 police have registered the case for 5 the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 447, 217, 119 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 192(A) and 192(B) of the KLR Act.
4. The allegations are that the High Court had passed order dated 04.08.2011 in W.P. No.31394/2009 directing the BBMP officials to remove the illegal structures and constructions put up by encroaching the storm water drain. Even though the order was passed on 04.08.2011, the officials of the BBMP had not implemented the said order. On account of the illegal structures, there is blockage of storm water and over flowing on the road and also to the houses, which has caused inconvenience and loss to the public. Even though the BBMP authority was required to implement the order of the High Court, the BBMP officials have failed to implement the order, thereby, they have committed the alleged offences. On the basis of the said complaint allegations, FIR in Crime No.103/2013 was 6 registered by respondent No.1 BMTF police. The petitioners have challenged the said FIR.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners by placing reliance on the order dated 29.05.2019 passed in Criminal Petition No.6604/2013, submitted that even though the criminal case was registered as Crime No.103/2013 by respondent No.1 BMTF police, due to expiry of the term of BMTF with effect from 18.03.2013, the FIR registered cannot be sustained in law.
6. In the aforesaid decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is observed as under:
"7. Insofar as the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners touching the jurisdiction of BMTF to register the FIR and to proceed with the investigation is concerned, a Coordinate Bench of this Court after considering the notification issued by the Government constituting BMTF and the 7 relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure has held that 'BMTF' is not a "Police Station" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Code. Further, this Court has held that in terms of the notification issued by the State Government, the term of BMTF expired w.e.f. from 18.30.2013. Even though said decision is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, yet having regard to the notification issued by the Government and the reasons assigned in the above order, I am in full agreement with the judgment of this Court and hold that 'BMTF' is not a police station within the meaning of Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C., and it had no authority or jurisdiction to register the above case in respect of the alleged offences."
7. In the present case, as could be seen from the records, the term of BMTF has expired with effect from 18.03.2013, whereas, in the present case, the complaint was registered by BMTF police on 15.07.2013. Thus, it is evident that as on the date of 8 registering the complaint, the said BMTF police had no authority or jurisdiction to register the said case, in respect of the alleged offence.
8. It is pertinent to note that, the main grievance of the complainant is that the officials of the BBMP have failed to comply with the directions issued in W.P. No.31394/2009 dated 04.08.2011. The complainant had filed a contempt petition for violation of the order passed in W.P. No.31394/2009, which was numbered as C.C. No.445/2012. In the said petition, the accused No.2 - BBMP Commissioner had appeared and filed Affidavit stating that the order passed in W.P. No.31394/2009 has been complied with and further they have undertaken to remove the encroachment in accordance with law. In view of the said submission, the contempt petition was closed as per the order dated 05.11.2012. Thereafter, on 15.07.2013, the complainant - respondent No.2 has filed a complaint 9 before the BMTF police alleging that the BBMP officials have not complied with the directions issued in the said writ petition and thereby, they have committed the alleged offences.
9. In the contempt petition, the respondent No.2 complainant being a party could have raised objections or made submission to the Court regarding non-compliance of the order, but no such efforts have been made at that point of time.
10. When the contempt petition was closed in view of submission made by accused No.2, another police complaint on the same allegations of non- compliance of the order passed in W.P. No.31394/2009, cannot be sustained in law.
11. For the foregoing reasons, I pass the following:
i. The writ petitions are allowed.
10
ii. The FIR registered in Crime No.103/2013
dated 15.07.2013, registered by respondent No.1 - Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force Police, pending on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City and also further proceedings in Crime No.103/2013, are quashed.
iii. The respondent No.2 - complainant is at liberty to initiate legal action in accordance with law for the offences if any alleged to have been committed as stated in the complaint. Further, liberty is also reserved to respondent No.2 - complainant to take further action on the same cause of action against any of the petitioners, if permissible under law.
Sd/-
JUDGE SJ