Allowed

Gstaad Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Feb 2022WP/2014/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows a writ petition filed to quash criminal proceedings. The court held that the FIR registration was not sustainable as the Commissioner of BBMP, after a proper enquiry, concluded that the petitioner had not encroached upon the storm water drain.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR in Crime No.2/2014 dated 13.1.2014 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.

Gstaad Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO.2014/2014(GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

1 . GSTAAD HOTEL PVT. LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT RAHEJA CHAMBERS, LINKING ROAD AND MAIN AVENUE, SANTACRUZ WEST MUMBAI 400 054 AND BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.24/1, LEVEL 1, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY HARSHAVARDHAN

¶8

2 . MR DEEPAK RAHEJA S/O BHAGAWANDAS RAHEJA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT RAHEJAS, 87/1, GANDHI GRAM ROAD JUHU, MUMBAI 400 049 (NOW AT BANGALORE ) REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. HARSHAVARDHAN

¶9

...PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY MS.ANANDA CHAKRAVARTHI FOR SRI AJESH KUMAR S, ADVOCATES) AND

¶11

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR THE BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE BANGALORE CITY BBMP OFFICE, N.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 002

¶12

¶13

2 . B.V. SHETTY

¶14

MAJOR FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN SECRETARY, TRANSFERENCY INTERNATIONAL INDI LAVELLELE ROAD BANGALORE – 560001

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 20.09.2017, R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN COMPLAINT REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.2/2014 ON 13.1.2014 AT ANNEXURE-A BY THE RESPONDENT BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The FIR was lodged against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 192(A), 192(B) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, 436(A), 321(B) of the Karnataka Municipalities Corporation Act and 120(B), 409, 217 read with Section 34 of IPC alleging that the petitioners have encroached the storm water drain. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations made in the FIR do not disclose the commission of offences as alleged against the petitioners. In the absence of

¶22

¶23

any notice issued under Section 192(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act calling upon the petitioners to remove the encroachment, the FIR registered against the petitioners is not sustainable in law. He further submits that the Commissioner of Bengaluru Bruhat Mahanagara Palike after holding an enquiry passed an order dated 24.3.2017 holding that the petitioner has not encroached the storm water drain. Hence, on this ground, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for quashing of the impugned order.

¶24

The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent – State would submit that the petitioners having encroached the storm water drain, the respondents have rightly registered the FIR against the petitioners.

¶25

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶26

During the pendency of this writ petition, the Commissioner of BBMP after holding an enquiry has passed the order stating that the petitioner has not encroached upon the storm water drain and there is no question of removal of box

¶27

¶28

type drain. In view of the order passed by the Commissioner of BBMP holding that the petitioner has not encroached storm water drain, the registration of the FIR against the petitioners is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

i) Writ petition is allowed;

¶31

ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.2/2014 dated 13.1.2014 at Annexure-A registered by the respondent – Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force is hereby quashed.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

BKM

Gstaad Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gstaad Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Karnataka

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 T Nagarathna @ Nagamma Vs Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Limited

Mr. T. v. Mohan Vs the State Government of Karnataka

Sri T Sudhakar Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

M/S Meliora Assets Reconstruction Company Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Veerendra Kumar Vs the State by the Prl. Civil Judge & Jmfc

Sabiha Begum Vs State of Karnataka