Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that in the instant case there is gross abuse of process of law which will result in infringement of constitutional rights of the petitioners including fundamental rights and other legal rights. He submitted that the complaint dated 18.4.2013 on its face value did not disclose any offence whatsoever much less the offences under any provisions of IPC and as such the same is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the complaint which is filed as against the petitioners-accused was without jurisdiction. He further submitted that BMTF Police Station is confined to register the case and to investigate the same in respect of the offences purported to have been committed under the IPC if they are committed along with the offences under the KMC Act or allied Acts, but the case registered by BMTF Police only discloses that the offences alleged are mainly covered under the IPC and even Section 321B of KMC Act appears to be only an innovative method resorted to by BMTF Police so as to some how lug the complaint into its jurisdiction though there is no offence made out under Section 321B of the KMC Act. He further submitted that the said complaint does not say that the jurisdictional Officer has exercised

- 10 -

the power to prevent any deviation or construction. He further submitted that the complaint without there being any offence committed by the petitioners under the Special Act like Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, Bangalore Development Authority Act, The Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act and other allied ten Acts as notified, the BMTF police have absolutely no jurisdiction to register the case as against the accused-petitioners and therefore the same is liable to be quashed on this score itself. He further submitted that there is no evidence much less prima facie material in the complaint if it is read as a whole to establish any of the offences and as such BMTF ought not to have acted upon the same. The act of BMTF is nothing but abuse of process of law by filing a false complaint. He further submitted that though the petitioners were not arrayed as accused and at the initial stage, a notice has been given to produce certain documents and without giving sufficient opportunity the accused-

- 12 -

Station in general sense so as to register the case under the IPC and to investigate the cases. By drawing my attention to the notification issued by the State Government he submitted that as per the said notification BMTF will get jurisdiction only under ten special Enactments and if anyone of the enactment is not applied, then under such circumstances, the said BMTF Police will lose the jurisdiction. He further submitted that the period of appointment of the officers and posting to work under BMTF Police Station was expired prior to filing of the complaint, dated 18.4.2013. Under such circumstances, the power exercised by the BMTF police is without there being any authority and as such the detention of the accused-petitioners is not justifiable in law. By referring to the decision of this Court in the case of G. D.Jayarama Vs. State by BMTF Police Station in Criminal Petition No.5340/2012 and connected matters, disposed of on 10.10.2013, he submitted that this Court has already held that Section 321B of the KMC

12. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the case came to be registered on 18.4.2013 but as per the Government Order No.Na.Aa.E.366 MNU 2011 Bangalore, dated 12.9.2012 the constitution of BMTF and its tenure was from

- 31 -

7.12.2011 to 18.3.2013. Under the said order nine Officers have been authorized to work with BMTF. It is his further contention that the said power which has been given, expired on 18.3.2013 and thereafter there is no extension of the authority or authorization to the said police and Police Station. Under such circumstances, it cannot be called as a 'General Police Station' and it has no authority to register the case either under IPC or even under the special Acts. He also brought to the notice of this Court to the letter dated 29.4.2013 of Public Information Officer and the Assistant Secretary to Government, Urban Development Department, BBMP, Bangalore, stating that under Right to Information Act, information was sought about the extension of the power of BMTF after 18.3.2013 and it is informed that any order/notification is not available with regard to extension of power of BMTF after 18.3.2013.