Dismissed

M R Ramesh v. the State

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2021CRL.P/9045/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed two criminal petitions seeking to quash a charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitions challenged a case involving allegations of corruption, forgery, and suppression of land conditions. The Court held that the petitions were not maintainable as no manifest abuse of process was established, particularly where similar earlier petitions were dismissed on

What did the court decide?

The petitions for quashing of the charge sheet and proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.457/2016 were dismissed.

M R Ramesh Vs the State — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.P.No.9045/2016 c/w Crl.P.No.10089/2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9045/2016 c/w CRIMINAL PETITION No.10089/2017

¶8

IN CRL.P.No.9045/2016:

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

M.R. RAMESH S/O. MR.RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT 456 RAMESH NURSERY BANNERGHATTA ROAD 4^TH KOTHANUR CROSS AREKERE VILLAGE, IIM POST BENGALURU-560 076 (SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)

¶11

M.R.SATISH

¶12

S/O. M.R. RAMESH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT 456 RAMESH NURSERY BANNERGHATTA ROAD 4^TH KOTHANUR CROSS AREKERE VILLAGE, IIM POST BENGALURU-560 076

¶13

M.R.RAVI S/O M.R.RAMESH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT 456 RAMESH NURSERY BANNERGHATTA ROAD

¶14

Crl.P.No.9045/2016 c/w Crl.P.No.10089/2017

¶15

¶16

4^TH KOTHANUR CROSS AREKERE VILLAGE, IIM POST BENGALURU-560 076

¶17

… PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. RAVI B. NAIK, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI. VIJAY KUMAR DESAI, ADV.)

¶19

AND :

¶20

THE STATE BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE M.S.BUILDING DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560 001

¶21

C.LAKSHMINARAYAN S/O. LATE CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.219 CHOWDESHWARI NILAYA HULIMAVI BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU-560 076 … RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. B.S.PRASAD, SPL.P.P. FOR R1; SRI. M.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADV. FOR R2)

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AS AT ANNEXURE – A AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN THE SPL.C.C.NO.457/2016 ON THE FILE OF LXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-78) AT ANNEXURE – F IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶24

IN CRL.P.No. 10089/2017:

¶25

BETWEEN :

¶26

J BHOOPESH REDDY S/O S. JAYARAMA REDDY AGE: 45 YEARS

¶27

OCC: DIRECTOR

¶28

Crl.P.No.9045/2016 c/w Crl.P.No.10089/2017

¶29

¶30

SJR ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. R/AT NO.1, SJR PREMISES 7 & 8 FLOOR, INDUSTRIAL AREA 7^TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 095 2. J.VIJAY REDDY S/O. S.JAYARAMA REDDY AGE: 43 YEARS OCC: DIRECTOR SJR ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. R/AT NO.1, SJR PREMISES 7 & 8 FLOOR, INDUSTRIAL AREA 7^TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095

¶31

… PETITIONERS

¶32

(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI. K.V.THIMMAIAH, ADV.)

¶33

AND :

¶34

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA URBAN DIVISION BENGALURU-560 064

¶35

REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA BENGALURU-560 001 2. C. LAKSHMINARAYANA S/O. LATE CHOWDAPPA AGE: 49 YEARS R/AT NO.219, CHOWDESHWARI NILAYA HULIMAVU, BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 076

¶36

… RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI. B.S.PRASAD, SPL.P.P. FOR R1;

¶38

SRI. M.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADV. FOR R2)

¶39

Crl.P.No.9045/2016 c/w Crl.P.No.10089/2017

¶40

¶41

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN SPL.C.C.NO.457/2016 (CR.NO.18/2012 OF KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA URBAN DIVISION, BENGALURU/RESPONENT NO.1) NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, BENGALURU (CH-78) FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 468, 471, 120B, 420 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) READ WITH SECTION 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.

¶42

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶43

O R D E R

¶44

Petitioners in Crl.P.No.10089/2017 are accused Nos.1 and 2 and the petitioners in Crl.P.No.9045/2016 are accused Nos.3 to 5 in Spl.C.C.No.457/2016 on the file of the LXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, Bengaluru.

¶45

They have filed these petitions seeking quashing of the charge sheet in Crime No.18/2012 of Karnataka Lokayuktha Urban Division out of which Spl.C.C.No.457/2016 arises. The petitioners in Crl.P.No.9045/2016 have also sought for quashing of

¶46

Crl.P.No.9045/2016 c/w Crl.P.No.10089/2017

¶47

¶48

the order of the Trial Court dated 03.11.2016 taking cognizance of the offences in Spl.C.C.No.457/2016.

¶49

For the purpose of convenience, the petitioners will be referred to with their ranks before the Trial Court. Accused Nos.3 to 5 were the owners of land bearing Sy.No.100 measuring 1 acre 13 guntas, 101 measuring 12.67 guntas, 103 measuring 5 acres, in all measuring 6 acres 25.67 guntas of Arekere Village.

¶50

The Government by preliminary notification dated 17.11.1988 proposed to acquire portion of those lands for the purpose of J.P. Nagar 9^th Stage Scheme. The final notification was issued on 22.07.1991.

¶51

On the application of accused No.3 dated 23.02.1992 and 29.03.1993 for denotification of the said lands, the Government vide notification dated 30.10.1993 denotified those lands from acquisition. While applying for denotification, accused No.3 undertook that he maintains the denotified lands as

¶52

Crl.P.No.9045/2016 c/w Crl.P.No.10089/2017

¶53

¶54

nursery. Therefore, denotification was issued subject to the said condition. The said notification dropping the acquisition was notified in the Government Gazette on 26.08.1996.

¶55

On 22.11.2005 accused No.3 filed

¶56

application for conversion of the said lands for non-agricultural use. The concerned Authorities by order dated 28.11.2006 permitted the same. On 07.03.2007, accused Nos.3 to 5 entered into a joint development agreement with M/s. SJR Enterprises Private Limited for development of the lands. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are the Directors of the said Company. Accused Nos.1 to 5 submitted a plan to the Bangalore Development Authority for the purpose of construction of apartment over the said land. On 17.03.2007 Bangalore Development Authority approved the said plan.

¶57

Subsequently, on 06.08.2007 accused

¶58

Nos.3 to 5 applied for conversion of 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.103 which was not converted earlier. On

¶59

Crl.P.No.9045/2016 c/w Crl.P.No.10089/2017

¶60

¶61

14.01.2008, the Bangalore Development Authority issued no objection certificate to the Deputy Commissioner for conversion of the said 16 guntas. On 05.02.2008, the Deputy Commissioner passed the order for conversion of the said 16 guntas land in Sy.No.103. On 06.03.2008, the Bangalore Development Authority permitted accused Nos.1 to 5 to commence the work of the project on 7 acres 1.67 guntas.

¶62

On 17.02.2012 respondent No.2 filed complaint in PCR No.8/2012 before the Trial Court against the petitioners and the officers and officials of Bangalore Development Authority, Sub-Registrar’s Office, Land Revenue Department seeking their prosecution for the offences under Sections 120B, 468, 471 of IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1986 (‘P.C. Act” for short).

¶63

As already pointed out, the petitioners were accused Nos.1 to 5 in the said complaint. Accused Nos.6 to 13 were the Government officers/officials. In the complaint, respondent No.2 alleged that

¶64

Crl.P.No.9045/2016 c/w Crl.P.No.10089/2017

¶65

¶66

suppressing the condition to maintain the land as nursery, accused Nos.1 to 5 in collusion with the other accused managed to secure the approval from the Bangalore Development Authority for the project. The second allegation was that in respect of 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.103, accused Nos.1 to 5 had entered into an unregistered supplementary agreement to the joint development agreement. It was further alleged that to evade the process of law, accused Nos.1 to 5 while submitting the application for Bangalore Development Authority for approval produced forged supplementary agreement as if it was a registered agreement.

¶67

The Trial Court exercising the powers under Section 156 of Cr.P.C., referred the said complaint to Lokayuktha Police for investigation. On the basis of such reference order and the complaint, Lokayuktha Police registered the first information report against accused Nos.1 to 13 in Crime No.18/2012.

¶68

Subsequent to the filing of first information report, Bangalore Development Authority suspended

¶69

Crl.P.No.9045/2016 c/w Crl.P.No.10089/2017

¶70

¶71

the approval granted to accused Nos.1 to 5 for the project. Accused Nos.3 to 5 challenged the said order before this Court in W.P.No.25066-68/2012 (LA-BDA). This Court, by order dated 12.12.2012 allowed the writ petition taking note of the fact that for the alleged criminal acts of the accused, a complaint is already registered by Lokayuktha Police and that shall take its own course and subject to compliance of the required terms and conditions, Bangalore Development Authority shall permit accused Nos.3 to 5 to proceed with the project.

¶72

Accused Nos.3 to 5 filed Crl.P.No.4290/2012 seeking quashing of the complaint in PCR No.8/2012 and the proceedings in that. This Court by order dated 19.02.2016 dismissed the said petition on merits. It appears accused Nos.3 to 5 filed I.A.No.1/2016 in Crl.P.No.4290/2012 seeking clarification that the observations made in the said order shall not come in the way of the petitioners’ challenging the charge sheet. This Court by order dated 24.03.2016 allowed the said

¶73

Crl.P.No.9045/2016 c/w Crl.P.No.10089/2017

¶74

¶75

application with the observations that if at all the petitioners file second petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., under the changed circumstances, the order passed in the said petition shall not have any bearing on the merits of such proposed petition.

¶76

On filing the charge sheet, accused Nos.3 to 5 filed Crl.P.No.2366/2016 before this Court seeking quashing of the charge sheet and all the further proceedings. This Court by order dated 17.08.2016 on considering the merits dismissed the said petition. In the course of that order, it was observed that it is open to the petitioners to urge all their contentions while the Trial Court taking cognizance of the case of the offences or framing charges.

¶77

Then the Trial Court by order dated 03.11.2016 took cognizance of the offences and summoned accused Nos.1 to 10 to take up the trial. Accused Nos.3 to 5 filed Crl.P.No.9045/2016 for quashing of the charge sheet and the entire proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.457/2016. Accused Nos.1

¶78

Crl.P.No.9045/2016 c/w Crl.P.No.10089/2017

¶79

¶80

and 2 have filed Crl.P.No.1089/2016 seeking quashing of the charge sheet in Spl.C.C.No.457/2016.

¶81

Sri. Ravi B. Naik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri.Vijay Kumar Desai, learned advocate on record for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.9045/2016 and Sri.Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri. K.V. Thimmaiah, learned advocate on record for petitioners in Crl.P.No.10089/2017 reiterating the grounds of the petitions seek quashing of the impugned charge sheet and the proceedings on the following grounds:

¶82

i) By the time the Bangalore Development Authority granted approval to the project of accused Nos.1 to 5, the land in question was covered under the residential zone of master plan of Bengaluru City issued by the Bangalore Development Authority. By that time, several constructions had come up in the entire area. Therefore, the condition that the land shall be maintained as nursery had rendered infructuous and considering that the approval was granted. There was

¶83

Crl.P.No.9045/2016 c/w Crl.P.No.10089/2017

¶84

¶85

no suppression of condition imposed in denotification order;

¶86

ii) The agreement with regard to 16 guntas was only a supplementary agreement as the said land was not included in the main agreement. Due to the ignorance, that was not registered. By later registration the said defect was cured. Accepting that the Bangalore Development Authority has approved the project plan. Therefore, the contention that the unregistered document was produced to deprive the Government of its revenue and to make wrongful gain does not survive;

¶87

iii) The contentions that the document was unregistered document and at the same time that was forged to show that to be a registered document are mutually inconsistent. Thus there is no material to make out the offences alleged against accused Nos.1 to 5;

¶88

iv) Dismissal of the petition at the stage of first information report does not disentitle the petitioners

¶89

Crl.P.No.9045/2016 c/w Crl.P.No.10089/2017

¶90

¶91

from filing the petition after submission of the charge sheet; and

¶92

v) In referring the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Trial Court acted contrary to the provisions of Sections 154 and 156 of Cr.P.C.

¶93

In support of their contention, they rely upon the following judgments:

¶94

i) Priyanka Srivastava and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others¹

¶95

ii) Anand Kumar Mohatta and another vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and another²

¶96

Countering the arguments of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, Sri. B.S.Prasad, learned standing counsel for respondent No.1 (Karnataka Lokayuktha) and Sri.M.R.Vijaykumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 (complainant) oppose the petitions on the following grounds:

¶97

i) Since petition of accused Nos.3 to 5 for quashing of the first information report and charge

¶98

1 (2015) 6 SCC 287

¶99

2 (2019) 11 SCC 706

¶100

Crl.P.No.9045/2016 c/w Crl.P.No.10089/2017

¶101

¶102

sheet were dismissed by this Court earlier, their petition is not maintainable;

¶103

ii) The allegations are not only about cheating the Government by evading stamp duty, but also about forging the document as if that was a registered document though not factually registered;

¶104

iii) The charge sheet records show that while obtaining the conversion order, accused Nos.1 to 5 had suppressed the condition of denotification that the land should be maintained as nursery. Even if the land in question had come in the residential zone, the accused were duty bound to disclose the condition of denotification;

¶105

iv) Since the earlier petitions were dismissed on merits and case involves offences under the P.C. Act, Priyanka Srivastava’s case is not applicable; and

¶106

v) Once the charge sheet is filed, the question of compliance of the guidelines held in Priyanka Srivastava’s case gets diluted.

¶107

Crl.P.No.9045/2016 c/w Crl.P.No.10089/2017

¶108

¶109

In support of his contention, he relies upon

¶110

the following judgments: i) Dr.Padma Priya vs. State of Karnataka and another³

¶111

ii) G.Jagadish vs State of Karnataka and another⁴

¶112

iii) Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and another vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and others⁵

¶113

Reg. compliance of Sections 154 and 156 of Cr.P.C.:

¶114

Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava’s case referred to Supra, it was contended that in the compliant there was no plea that the complainant approached the concerned police and they did not entertain his complaint and then he sent the complaint to the Superintendent of Police by post. It was further contended that no document was produced in proof of filing of such complaint, therefore, the requirement under Sections 154 and 156 of Cr.P.C. and the

¶115

3 Crl.P.No.8321/2016 [DD.-11.07.2018]

¶116

4 Crl.P.No.3868/2020 [D.D. 01.12.2020]

¶117

5 (2012) 10 SCC 517

¶118

Crl.P.No.9045/2016 c/w Crl.P.No.10089/2017

¶119

¶120

guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava’s case were not complied.

¶121

As already pointed out accused Nos.3 to 5 unsuccessfully approached this Court earlier on three occasions for quashing the complaint and charge sheet. That was subsequent to the judgment of Priyanka Srivastava’s case. Therefore, all such contentions with regard to compliance of Sections 154 and 156 of Cr.P.C., deemed to have been considered in those judgments.

¶122

The case involves the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. This Court in G.Jagadish’s case referred to supra has held that in the cases involving the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Priyanka Srivastava’s case is not applicable. It is no doubt true that in Anand Kumar Mohatta’s case referred to supra it was held that filing of the charge sheet does not take away the powers of the Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in considering the petition filed at the stage of first information report.

¶123

Crl.P.No.9045/2016 c/w Crl.P.No.10089/2017

¶124

¶125

But it was also held that such power can be exercised, if the accused are able to show that first information report was manifestly abuse of the process of the Court. As already pointed out, accused Nos.3 to 5 in their earlier attempts for quashing of the first information report failed to establish such abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case.

¶126

So far as accused Nos.1 and 2 they have come before the Court after charge sheet was filed and cognizance was taken. They have not sought quashing of the first information report. Therefore, contentions regarding the error in referring the first information report to the police for investigation etc., are not available to them.

¶127

Reg. abuse of the process of the Court:

¶128

It was contended that since the Bangalore Development Authority itself has approved the project plan realizing that the land in question comes in residential zone, no mala fides can be imputed to the

¶129

Crl.P.No.9045/2016 c/w Crl.P.No.10089/2017

¶130

¶131

accused. Thus it is contended that there was no suppression of any material fact. In the charge sheet, the allegation is not only about suppression before the Bangalore Development Authority of the condition of denotification order, but also before the Special Deputy Commissioner while seeking the conversion of the use of the said land to non-agricultural purpose.

¶132

It is not even the contention of the accused that in their application for conversion of land use or the application for the project site, they have disclosed the condition of denotification to maintain the land as nursery. It was contended that such condition was contained in the Gazette notification, therefore the public Authorities deemed to have the knowledge of the same, therefore, accused were not required to disclose the same in their application.

¶133

The charge sheet allegations are that accused Nos.1 to 5 in collusion with the concerned case workers managed to secure the order of conversion and approval of Bangalore Development Authority. Under

¶134

Crl.P.No.9045/2016 c/w Crl.P.No.10089/2017

¶135

¶136

the circumstances, whether accused Nos.1 to 5 had any criminal intension in not disclosing that condition or that was under their presumption that said condition is deemed to be known to the concerned Public Authorities is a matter of trial.

¶137

So far as accused Nos.3 to 5 such contention was already taken by them in the earlier petitions and those petitions are dismissed on merits. Accused Nos.1 and 2 stand on the same pedestal as that of accused Nos.3 to 5. Therefore, the reasoning applied by this Court in the earlier petition applies to accused Nos.1 and 2 also. It is still open to the accused to demonstrate in the trial that there was no criminal intension for them in not disclosing the said fact before the concerned Authority. Therefore, this Court does not find any abuse of process of the Court in the impugned proceedings or the order taking cognizance.

¶138

The other contention was that the supplementary agreement was subsequently registered and required stamp duty was paid, therefore, there was

¶139

Crl.P.No.9045/2016 c/w Crl.P.No.10089/2017

¶140

¶141

no cheating of the Government exchequer. It was also contended that the allegation of the production of the unregistered document to evade the registration charges and stamp duty and producing the unregistered agreement forging that as registered agreement are mutually inconsistent.

¶142

The allegations in the charge sheet are two fold. The prime contention was that with an intension to get the Bangalore Development Authority’s approval, the accused in collusion with the officials in the SubRegistrar’s Office managed to forge the seal and signatures of Sub-Registrar’s Office to represent that that document was registered with Bommanahalli SubRegistrar. Thereby, the accused have committed the offences of forgery, cheating etc. Secondly by such document accused evaded stamp duty and registration charges.

¶143

The charge sheet records contain the statement of CWs.2 and 3 the Senior Sub-Registrars of the Office of Sub-Registrar,

¶144

Crl.P.No.9045/2016 c/w Crl.P.No.10089/2017

¶145

¶146

Bommanahalli, Vartur to the effect that the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar in the said supplementary agreement are forged one. Therefore, the contention that the allegation was only cheating the Government to evade the stamp duty is not acceptable.

¶147

So far as the allegations of forging the documents, since the charge sheet contains some material, that is a matter of trial. On that ground, the proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶148

It is a settled principle of law that the High Court shall sparingly exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings that too in the rarest of rare cases. No manifest abuse of the process of the Court or failure of ends of justice is made out in these petitions. Therefore, petitions are dismissed.

¶149

Sd/JUDGE

¶150

M R Ramesh v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M R Ramesh v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Ajit Kumar Srivastava Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. H.R.Ranganath Vs Shri.Vamadeva Gowda

Chetan Srivastava Vs Smt. Reetu Sinha

Sri Venkatesh G Vs Amruthahalli Police Station

Smt. a. P. Navitha Vs the State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Ramanna @ Bar Ramanna