Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Heard the arguments of Sri. C.V. Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.P. 7303/2012, and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in other petitions. I have also heard the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State as also the learned counsel for respondent- complainant.

10

3. The first and foremost contention of the learned Senior Counsel Sri. C.V. Nagesh is that Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force (hereinafter referred to as 'BMTF') has no jurisdiction to register the FIR and to take up the matter for investigation. He submitted that the allegation in the complaint that the petitioners by encroaching the public land illegally have taken steps to widen the road and in the said process, there is encroachment of the public land, is totally baseless. The owners of the lands have executed the deed of relinquishment in favour of corporation authorities. One Nagaraj filed a suit in O.S. No.1231/2011 before the Court of Civil Judge at Bengaluru in respect of the said dispute wherein he had also sought for an order of temporary injunction against the defendants therein. The application I.A. No.1 filed in the said suit was dismissed after considering the merits of the case. He submitted that there afterwards, a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was also filed and the matter was referred by the learned Magistrate to the police as per 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. After investigation of the matter, ultimately, the police have filed 'B' report in the said case. As the said Nagaraj was not succeeded, in his efforts both in suit as well as in private complaint, he set up his brother to file present complaint before the BMTF in crime No.203/2012. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that BMTF can entertain the complaint, register the FIR and investigate the offences in respect of which there is a notification by the Government of Karnataka authorizing the BMTF to register the FIR and to investigate into the matter. So far as the present FIR is concerned, there is no authorisation by the government to register the case and investigate into the offences under the KTCP Act. Even with regard to the offences alleged under the provisions of the KMC Act, they are not at all the offences and no investigation can be conducted by the BMTF. If the offences under the provisions of the KTCP Act and the KMC Act are excluded, the remaining offences are only under the IPC and the BMTF is not competent to enquire into or investigate in respect of offences under IPC, even according to the notification issued by the government of Karnataka. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that looking to the complaint averments, no doubt, it is alleged that the offences are also committed under the provisions of Sections 192A and 192B of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the KLR Act'). In this connection also, assuming for the sake of appreciation of arguments, a procedure is prescribed and the said procedure is to be followed before registering the FIR, and an opportunity is to be given to the land owners and alleged encroachers. After getting their say and after considering their reply in the matter, still if the government feels that such offences are committed under the provisions of the KLR Act, then FIR can be registered for the said offences and which procedure is not followed in this case. Hence, he submitted that even considering the case on merits also, there is no prima facie case made out by the respondents in registering the FIR as against the petitioners herein. Hence, he submitted to allow the petitions and to quash the proceedings. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the following decisions:

8. I have perused FIR, complaint, the grounds urged by the petitioners in the respective petitions, objection statements filed by the respondents to the said petitions and also the documents produced on both sides in support of their contentions and the decisions relied upon by both sides, which are referred above.

9. One L. Nagesh lodged complaint dated 13.11.2011 to the Station House Officer, BMTF, Bengaluru. The averments of the complaint in brief is that there is a Begur - Hulivmavu connecting road in between the Hosur main road and Bannerghatta main road. It was having 6 ft cart road as approach road as indicated in the village map. The said road was widened to 40 ft. tar road that too illegally without any acquisition when the urbanisation has its effect. The developers have thought the area as a commercial hub. The builders like M/s. Annabela builders and the developer private limited (DLF) and M/s. Saudela Constructions (Hiranandani) with the help of politicians have barged into the area by inducing the farmers. Bengaluru Revised Master Plan-2015 was approved by the town and country planning authority and it was proposed to develop the existing road from Begur to Hulimavu connecting Bannerghatta to 18 mts. but still it was not materialized. It is further averred that the developers by using their clouts were managing to get 24 mts. road as against the 18 mts. proposed in revised master plan-2015. There is also an allegation that it was started by Mr. Aravinda Limbavali, the then Higher education minister who had issued a direction to widen the road up to 24 mts. Further allegation goes show that there is no demand from the villagers of the said area for widening the road. But it is only to help the developers and the builders, the respondents in collusion with the said builders are making an attempt to widen the road up to 24 mts. The act of the respondents is against the provisions of the KTCP Act and in violation of Bengaluru Revised Master Plan-2015 and further in violation of the provisions of the KMC Act. The developers have not only encroached the government property but also encroached Kalyani, CA sites, rajakaluve and karab lands which were evidenced by the press reports and also investigation order by the Assistant Director vide their letter dated 12.7.2012 addressed to the Joint Commissioner and sought for report about the encroachment of the government land, the constructions of buildings violating the building byelaws/government plan without leaving park, open space, CA sites and also closed rajakaluve and sought for total station survey of the said land with the assistance of revenue surveyor, revenue officer, ward engineer and to prepare sketch. The report was submitted on 31.7.2012. Hence, it is contended in the complaint that the respondent authorities with intention to help the developers and the builders are making an attempt to widen the road. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR was registered for the alleged offences under section 119, 217, 218, 181, 197, 420 read with section 34 of IPC and sections 320, 321, 321(b) of KMC Act, 1976 and section 76(fff) of the KTCP Act, 1961 registered in BMTF crime No.203/2012.

" BMTF can register a case and proceed with the investigation of case if the facts contained in the complaint disclose the offences under the special Acts mentioned in G.O. NO.UDD 247 MNU 95 dated 19.3.1996 and those mentioned above read with or without those relevant under the Indian Penal code and the Karnataka Police Act. If the complaint discloses commission of offences only under the Indian Penal Code or under the Karnataka Police Act, then, it will not be competent on the part of the BMTF to proceed with the investigation thereof. "

17. In view of the provisions under section 192A of the KLR Act so also the government circular issued under the provisions of Section 192A of the KLR Act, there is a bar to the BMTF to register the FIRs and to take up investigation in the matter. Therefore, when there is a clear bar under the said provisions so also the government circular, it is not necessary to refer to the other merits of the case.

18. Accordingly, I pass the following order:

(a) The writ petitions and the criminal petitions are allowed and the proceedings in Cr.No.203/2012 registered by BMTF police against the above petitioners are hereby quashed