Allowed

Smt H S Sujatha v. State by Acb Police

Karnataka HC18 Apr 2022CRL.P/2687/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed FIR proceedings against petitioner H.S. Sujatha, an Accounts Superintendent, who collected betterment charges pursuant to a specific Board resolution. The Court held that since she acted in accordance with valid resolutions, continuing proceedings would amount to an abuse of process and harassment.

What did the court decide?

Quashed proceedings in Crime No.6/2022 against the petitioner in respect of offences under PC Act and IPC 120B.

Smt H S Sujatha Vs State by Acb Police — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2687 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.H.S.SUJATHA W/O UMAPATHI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.62/7 3^RD CROSS, 1^ST MAIN SARASWATHIPURAM HALASURU BENGALURU – 560 008.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI PRAVEEN S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE BY ACB POLICE REPRESENTED BY HCGP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 01.

¶13

SRI M.J.DAYANAND AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, POLICE INSPECTOR ANTI- CORRUPTION BUREAU NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU KARNATAKA – 560 001.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

¶16

(BY SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.6/2022 REGISTERED BY THE ACB POLICE ON THE FILE OF THE 23^rd ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU FOR OFFENCE P/U/S.13(1)(c)(d) R/W SEC.13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AND SEC.13(1)(a) R/W 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2018 R/W SEC.120-B OF IPC.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in Crime No.6 of 2022 registered for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(c)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 13(1)(a) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (‘PC Act’ for short) read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

¶22

Heard Sri Praveen. S., learned counsel appearing for the

¶23

petitioner and Sri B.B.Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

¶24

Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleading, are as follows:

¶25

The petitioner, at the relevant point in time, was working as an Accounts Superintendent at the Bangalore Development Authority (‘BDA’ for short). The parent cadre of the petitioner is the Karnataka State Accounts Department and she was on deputation to the BDA. On 31-01-2022 an article is published in a newspaper alleging that the petitioner was associated with Arkavathi site allotment scam. Based upon the said article in the newspaper, approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was sought for and granted by the competent authority after which, suo motu complaint against the petitioner and others was registered for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C.Act read with Section 120B of the IPC.

¶26

¶27

The factum of the petitioner being granted anticipatory bail and all other factors concerning bail are not necessary to be adverted to. The facts that led to registration of aforesaid crime against the petitioner/accused No.1 was that, land in Sy.Nos.26/1, 26/2, 26/3, 26/4, 26/5, 27/1 and 36/2 totally measuring 10 acres 33 guntas was proposed for acquisition in terms of the BDA Act for formation of Arkavathi layout in K.Narayanapura Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. The possession of lands aforementioned was taken by M/s Trinity Village Plot Owners Association in terms of the order passed by this Court for regularization of some of the plots on payment of betterment fee. The charge of betterment fee is the subject matter of the present petition.

¶28

The petitioner, as stated hereinabove, was working as Accounts Superintendent in the BDA. The BDA had passed a resolution in Sub.No.138/2011 in its meeting held on 28.04.2011 determining betterment charges to be collected for revenue plots acquired across 21 different layouts. In terms of

¶29

¶30

the said decision, betterment charge in connection with Arkavathi layout was fixed at Rs.59/- per sq.ft. and the plots were regularized after remittance of betterment charges. There was another decision of the Board in Resolution No.141/2014 wherein betterment charge was fixed at 25% of the value of the site. This decision of the Board was on the basis of Decision No.43/2004 dated 3-02-2004 of the Board.

¶31

About 35 individuals claiming to be owners of revenue plots sought for regularization of plots after remittance of betterment charges. The said applications of those 35 members were sent for collection of betterment charges to the Accounts Department, Accounts Superintendent of which was the petitioner. The betterment charges were fixed by the petitioner at Rs.59/- per sq.ft. The allegation against the petitioner is that betterment charge ought to have been collected at 25% of the value of the plot in terms of Board’s decision of 2014 and not Rs.59/- per sq.ft. which was a general decision of the Board. It is on this basis the crime is registered alleging that the petitioner

¶32

¶33

has illegally collected Rs.59/- per sq.ft. in terms of the decision of the Board in No.138/2011 and not 25% of the sital value as was done in decision No.43/2004 concerning the allottees of 35 applicants. The allegation against the petitioner is only with regard to quantum of betterment charges that is collected, which according to the BDA is contrary to the resolution.

¶34

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently argue and contend that the petitioner has nothing to do with any other event in the BDA except collection of betterment charges. The allegation against the petitioner is also the same. The petitioner has in fact followed the resolution that is to be followed for fixing of betterment charges at Rs.59/- per sq.ft.. The figure of 25% in a general circular was not applicable to the present acquisition or allotment as the decision of the BDA in resolution No.138/2011 was what covers the issue and what is charged by the petitioner.

¶35

The learned counsel representing respondent would vehemently refute this submission to contend that the petitioner

¶36

¶37

has deliberately charged Rs.59/- per sq.ft. and what ought to have been charged was 25% of the sital value as betterment charges and, therefore, she is guilty of offences punishable as afore-quoted and would submit that the matter is still under investigation and this Court should not interfere at this stage of the proceedings.

¶38

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.

¶39

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. To discern what is in dispute, the resolutions of the BDA are required to be noticed. The case at hand is one where one resolution is pitted against another resolution. In the complaint registered by the BDA what concerns the petitioner is germane to be noticed and the same is extracted hereunder for the purpose of quick reference:

¶40

“----------

¶41

¶42

DzÀgÉ ©rJ ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£À «¨sÁUÀzÀ C¢üPÁj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹§âA¢gÀªÀgÀÄ oÀgÁªÀÅ ¸ÀA.141/2014, 43/2004, 377/2011, 338/2011, 80/2008 gÀ°è ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ wÃªÀiÁð£ÀzÀ°è ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ¥ÀgÀ ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV PÀæªÀÄ ªÀ»¸ÀzÉ ¸ÀAWÀzÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ CPÀæªÀÄªÁV ±Á«Ä¯ÁV oÀgÁ«£À°è C£ÀÄªÉÆÃ¢¹zÀ 18 d£ÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÉÃj¹ MlÄÖ 35 d£À ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjUÉ 40 * 60 C¼ÀvÉAiÀÄ ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁr ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ/¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ PÉÆÃmÁåAvÀgÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä ¨É¯É ¨Á¼ÀÄªÀ ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÀgÀ°è 9 d£ÀgÀÄ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉUÉ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 9 d£ÀgÀÄ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉUÉ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä vÀÄAqÀÄ ¨sÀÆ«ÄAiÀÄAvÉ RjÃ¢ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀgÉ G½zÀ 17 d£ÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À RjÃ¢ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï£À°è JµÀÄÖ «¹ÛÃtðzÀ°è JµÀÄÖ gÉ«£ÀÆå ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß gÀa¸À®Ä £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄw¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ AiÀiÁªÀ «¹ÛÃtðzÀ°è JµÀÄÖ ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß gÀa¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ. JµÀÄÖ ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬ÄvÀ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÀAWÀzÀªÀgÀÄ RjÃ¢ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼ÀîzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ E¯ÁSÉ/C¢üPÁj, C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ/¨sÀÆªÀiÁ¥ÀPÀjAzÀ RavÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆ¼ÀîzÉ, ¸ÀAWÀzÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ ªÀiÁ»w ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÀAvÉ ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£À «¨sÁUÀzÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄªÀ»¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ§A¢zÀÄÝ.

¶43

F ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ DzÉÃ±À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀàµÀÖ ¤zÉÃð±À£À E®è¢zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¹gÀÄªÀ ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀUÀ½UÉ zÀgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÆÃj G¥À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð -4 gÀªÀgÀ «¨sÁUÀ¢AzÀ PÀqÀvÀªÀÅ DyðPÀ «¨sÁUÀPÉÌ §A¢zÀÄÝ, DyðPÀ «¨sÁUÀzÀªÀgÀÄ ²æÃªÀÄw dAiÀÄ®QëöägÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ oÀgÁªÀÅ ¸ÀA.138/2011, ¢.28/04/2011 gÀ°è ¤tð¬Ä¹gÀÄªÀ zÀgÀªÀ£ÀÄß F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄAvÉ G¥À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð-4 gÀªÀgÀÄ zÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁr ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß 2019 £ÉÃ ¸Á°£À°è ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è DyðPÀ «¨sÁUÀzÀ CPÀæªÀÄ J¸ÀVgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ§A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.”

¶44

In terms of the complaint against the petitioner, the allegation is with regard to fixing of price of the aforesaid allotment for collection of betterment charges. The resolution that the petitioner followed i.e., resolution No.138/2011 reads as follows:

¶45

¶46

“4) ogÁªÀ Å ¸À ASÀ å 138/2011, ¢£ÁAPÉ :18À -04-2011

¶47

F oÀgÁ«£À CeÉAqÁzÀ°è, DPÁðªÀw §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄÄ ¸ÉÃjzÀAvÉ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ gÀa¹gÀÄªÀ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 21 §qÁªÀuÉUÀ½UÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Ý ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ PÀ®A 17(1) gÀAvÉ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ±ÀÄ®Ì «¢ü¸ÀÄªÀ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄUÀ¼À ¥ÀnÖ vÀAiÀiÁj¹ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ ºÁUÀÆ PÀ®A 20 gÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ gÀa¹zÀÝ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄªÀ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ±ÀÄ®ÌªÀ£ÀÄß «¢ü¸À®Ä ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ wÃªÀiÁð£ÀzÀAvÉ, DPÁðªÀw §qÁªÀuÉUÉ ¥Àæw ZÀzÀÄgÀ CrUÉ 59/gÀÆ.UÀ¼À C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ±ÀÄ®ÌªÀ£ÀÄß «¢ü¸À®Ä wÃªÀiÁð£À vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼Àî¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.”

¶48

Resolution No.80/2018 reads as follows:

¶49

“ 5) ogÁªÀ Å ¸À ASÀ å 80/2018, ¢£ÁAPÉ :27À -03-2018

¶50

F oÀgÁ«£À CeÉAqÁzÀ°è, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¥ÀÆªÀð vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, PÉ.Dgï.¥ÀÄgÀA ºÉÆÃ§½, PÉ.£ÁgÁAiÀÄt¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ««zsÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gïUÀ¼À°è ªÉÄ||næ¤n ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æÃ «¯ÉÃeï ¸ÉÊmï N£À¸ïð C¸ÉÆÃ¹AiÉÄÃµÀ£ïì (j) ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¤ÃqÀÄªÀ ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀUÀ½UÉ oÀgÁªÀÅ ¸ÀASÉå 138/2011, ¢£ÁAPÀ:28-04-2011 gÀ°è vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄªÀ wÃªÀiÁð£ÀzÀAvÉ ¥ÀÄgÉÆÃ©üªÀÈ¢Þ ±ÀÄ®ÌªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¹PÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀ §UÉÎ «µÀAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß ¸À¨sÉUÉ ªÀÄAr¹zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¥ÀÆªÀð vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, PÉ.Dgï.¥ÀÄgÀA ºÉÆÃ§½, PÉ.£ÁgÁAiÀÄt¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 36/2, 26/1 jAzÀ 26/5, 27/1 & 27/5 gÀ°è ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤«Äð¹gÀÄªÀ 66 ««zsÀ C¼ÀvÉAiÀÄ gÉ«£ÀÆå ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀzÁgÀjUÉ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ DyðPÀ «¨sÁUÀzÀªÀgÀÄ ¤UÀ¢ü¥Àr¸ÀÄªÀ zÀgÀªÀ£ÀÄß «¢ü¸ÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¸À°è¸À®Ä wÃªÀiÁð£ÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.”

¶51

Resolution No.138/2011 depicts Rs.59/- per sq.ft. to be the betterment charge in respect of revenue sites. Resolution No.80/2018 is specific that collection of betterment charge of 66 plots should be in terms of Resolution No.138/2011 (supra) . The collection of betterment charges made by the petitioner is

¶52

¶53

also appended to the statement of objections. The petitioner has collected Rs.59/- per sq.ft. in all the 35 allotments. This factor is not in dispute.

¶54

The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the BDA that the petitioner ought to have followed resolution made in Sub.No.43 of 2004 dated 3-02-2004 is unacceptable. No doubt the prescription in 2004 was for a higher price. The said resolution is a general resolution for all plots. Resolution Nos.141/2014 and 80/2018 follow resolution No.138/2011 which depicts Rs.59/- per sq.ft. to be collected as betterment charges. The petitioner has determined Rs.59/- per sq.ft. as the amount payable as betterment charges. This fact is not disputed. If this fact is not disputed and collection of betterment charges is done with specific resolutions, the petitioner having acted according to the resolution cannot be found fault with. The crime registered on the basis of a resolution in Sub.No.43 of 2004 which even according to the respondent, is not the one that is applicable.

¶55

¶56

Therefore, it is a case where the petitioner is simply

¶57

hauled into these proceedings without there being any rhyme or reason to allege such misdemeanor on the part of the petitioner. Having found no fault on the part of the petitioner on unimpeachable documents that are produced, permitting further proceedings to continue against the petitioner, that too, in the teeth of the petitioner following all the resolutions, would become an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where this Court has to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner, as continuance of proceedings further would degenerate into harassment. This finding is rendered only in the case of the petitioner, as the role of the petitioner was only in fixing the amount of betterment charges and a finding is rendered that the petitioner has fixed betterment charges in tune with the resolutions of the BDA.

¶58

¶59

For the aforesaid reasons, I make the following:

¶60

O R D E R

¶61

(i) Criminal Petition stands allowed.

¶62

(ii) Impugned proceedings in Crime No.6/2022 pending on the file of XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore stand quashed qua the petitioneraccused No.1.

¶63

(iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of this order is only for the purpose of consideration of the case of petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind the proceedings against other accused persons.

¶64

(iv) I.A.No.1/2022 stands disposed of consequently.

Sd/-

JUDGE

bkp

CT:MJ

Smt H S Sujatha v. State by Acb Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt H S Sujatha v. State by Acb Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shanthi Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Ashwini Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Shilpa Mahendra Vs Sri Mahendra R

Sri Satheesh Reddy G v Vs State by

Sri. Ravi Kumar Samminga Vs State of Karnataka

Sanjaya T N Vs M/S Future World