Sri a Maruthi Kumar Vs State of Karnataka by

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.49/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE IV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE OF THE CASE OF BMTF POLICE AS ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW, AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ALLOW THIS PETITION.

¶17

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:1963 CRL.P No. 6039 of 2018

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner being accused No.1 is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in Crime No.49/2018 of Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force (for short 'BMTF'), on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 33 & 72 of Bangalore Development Authority (for short 'BDA Act') and 120B, 409, 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

¶23

Brief facts of the case are that, one Sri. Rajshekhar of Hulimangal village lodges complaint before ADGP, BMTF and on the basis of same, a preliminary inquiry was conducted by the police inspector and preliminary report was submitted on 20.07.2018. It is stated that 2.35 acres of land including 3 Guntas of Karab in Sy.No.176/1 of Kothanur village was acquired for forming 8th phase of JP Nagar by BDA, by issuing preliminary Notification and subsequently, the final Notification on 19.10.1994. The compensation for acquisition of the land was paid to the owner of the land by name ER Palkan Bin R.W.Palkan. Later the BDA has formed the layout. In the meantime, it is stated that the petitioner projecting himself as the owner of the property, approached the Revenue Officials

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:1963 CRL.P No. 6039 of 2018

¶26

i.e., accused Nos. 2 to 5, and managed to enter his name in the revenue records pertaining to the said land, showing him as the owner of the property, without any basis.

¶27

It is stated that accused No.2 is the Assistant Commissioner, who colluding with the petitioner, passed the order directing entering his name in the revenue records. Similarly, accused No.3, being the Sheristadar, accused No.4, being the Revenue Inspector, accused No.5, being the Village Accountant, in active collusion and hand in glove with the petitioner, concocted the revenue records. On the basis of preliminary report, the FIR came to be registered for the offence punishable under Sections 33 and 72 of BDA and under Sections 120B, 409, 420 of IPC. The petitioner, being accused No.1 has approached this Court, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

¶28

Heard Sri Venkatesh H.N, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Perused the materials on records.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, BMTF is not a police station and it has no authority to register

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1963 CRL.P No. 6039 of 2018

¶31

the FIR and to investigate into the same. Secondly, it is his contention that, BMTF has not followed the procedure as contemplated under law and in that regard, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this court in Smt. Lalitha Sastry v/s State of Karnataka¹ . Since no opportunity was given to the petitioner by issuing the show cause notice, initiation of the criminal proceedings is bad under law and therefore, prays for allowing the petition.

¶32

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition, submitted that the materials on record clearly discloses that the land measuring 2.35 acres including the Guntas of Karab, in Sy.No.176/1 of Kothnur village was acquired by BDA long back. The final Notification was issued in the year 1994. The possession of the property was taken over by BDA on 25.02 .2000, after paying the compensation to the owner of the land i.e., ER Palkan. It is only in the year 2016, after the land was fully developed, the petitioner, in collusion with accused Nos. 2 to 5, managed to enter his name in the revenue records as owner of the property, without there being any basis. It is stated that there are manipulation of revenue

¶33

1 ILR 2008, Kar 4520

¶34

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1963 CRL.P No. 6039 of 2018

¶35

records. Revenue officials, including the Assistant

¶36

Commissioner have colluded with the petitioner. Under such circumstances, a detailed investigation is required to be undertaken. Accordingly, she prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶37

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶38

“Whether the Petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?"

¶39

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following:

¶40

R E A S O N S

¶41

It is the contention of the petitioner that, the revenue records disclose his name as owner of the property. The petitioner places reliance on the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 17.02.2016, directing the Tahsildar to enter the name of the petitioner in respect of 2.32 Guntas of land in Sy.No.176/1 situated at Kottnur village, Uttaralli, Hobli. It is the specific contention of learned High Court Government

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1963 CRL.P No. 6039 of 2018

¶43

Pleader that this order relied on by the petitioner was not found in the original revenue records in the office of the Assistant Commissioner and it is a manipulated document. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner is also arrayed as accused No.2. It is pertinent to note that accused No.3 is the Sheristadar, accused No.4 is the Revenue Inspector, accused No.5 is the Village Accountant. Very serious allegations are made that, all these revenue officials in collusion with the petitioner have managed to concoct and manipulate the revenue records.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the sale deed dated 10.05.1957, where-under Narayanappa and his brother Govindappa purchased 8 acres of land comprising in Sy.Nos.174, 175, 176 and 177 of Kathnoor village. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said Narayanappa is the grandfather of the petitioner. However, no supporting documents are produced before the Court in that regard. The documents on record prima facie discloses that, mutation of name of the petitioner in the revenue records is only on the basis of the order dated 17.02.2016 passed by accused No.2, which is under serious dispute. When such

¶45

7 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:1963 CRL.P No. 6039 of 2018

¶47

serious allegations are made, I am of the opinion that, it is not a fit case for quashing the criminal proceedings.

¶48

One of the grounds argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that, he was not served with notice as required under Section 33 of BDA, and he places reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Lalitha Sastry (supra) . The facts of the case dealt with by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court is entirely different. It was a case of encroachment and under such circumstances, the Court felt that an opportunity should have been given to the petitioneraccused to explain and to justify possession of the land. But here, very serious allegations are made against the petitioner along with the co-accused for having manipulated the revenue records in respect of a valuable property.

¶49

Last contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is with regard to the jurisdiction of BMTF for registering the FIR and investigating into the matter. In this regard, learned High Court Government Pleader has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sri Chennakeshava v/s The State of

¶50

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1963 CRL.P No. 6039 of 2018

¶51

Karntaka² , wherein the Court has taken note of various Government Orders, Circulars, etc., and formed an opinion that, the Government proceedings dated 02.02.2013 confirms the authority under BMTF and the bar is only in respect of exclusive offences under IPC, which does not empower the BMTF to investigate. It is also felt that the Government proceedings dated 02.02.2013 makes it clear that, BMTF can deal with the matter in view of the notification of even date and the periodical Notifications issued are referred to in the order. Thus, it was concluded that, the very contention that BMTF Notification is not extended, cannot be accepted.

¶52

In the present case, similar contentions were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. When the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, after referring to various Government Orders, Circulars and also the Orders passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court at earlier point of time, came to the conclusion that, BMTF is having authority to investigate into the matter, I do not find any merits in the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the criminal

¶53

2 Crl.R.P.No.294 of 202 DD 20.12.2024

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:1963 CRL.P No. 6039 of 2018

¶55