Mrs. G Chitra Poornima Vs State of Karnataka

MR. VIJAYA SHEKAR THANGIAH, S/O. LATE. MR. GEORGE THANGIAH, AGED 62 YEARS HAVING OFFICE AT GEORGE THANGIAH COMPLEX (EAST), 80 FEET ROAD, INDIRANGAR, BENGALURU - 560 075.

¶12

MRS. RACHEL CHITRA PRABHAKAR W/O. MR. SATHI PRABHAKAR, AGED 59 YEARS HAVING OFFICE AT GEORGE THANGIAH COMPLEX (EAST), 80 FEET ROAD, INDIRANGAR, BENGALURU - 560 075.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. K.G. RAGHAVAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:26653 WP No. 9625 of 2020

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AND:

¶19

STATE OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE POLICE STATION, BBMP MAIN BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, NR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶20

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARATMENT.

¶21

THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶22

UNION BANK OF INDIA (PREVIOUSLY ANDHRA BANK) UTTARAHALLI BRANCH, BENGALURU - 560 070, REPRESENTED BY SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER.

¶23

UNION BANK OF INDIA (PREVIOUSLY ANDHRA BANK), INDIRANAGAR BRANCH, BENGALURU - 560 038, REP. BY SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER.

¶24

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26653 WP No. 9625 of 2020

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

6. KARNATAKA BANK

¶27

INDIRANAGAR BRANCH 485, CHINMAYA MISSION HOSPITAL ROAD, INDIRANAGAR 1^ST STAGE H COLONY, INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 038 REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYAM, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SMT. SHWETHA RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. K.B. MONESHKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5;

¶30

SRI. NITHIN CHANDRA M, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶31

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC. 482 OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE UNDATED IMPUGNED NOTICE RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONERS ON 05.06.2020 FROM THE R-3 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.07.2020 PASSED BY R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.,

¶32

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:26653 WP No. 9625 of 2020

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

Heard Sri K.G.Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents no.1 to 3, Smt. Shwetha Ravishankar, learned counsel for respondent no.4, Sri K.B.Moneshkumar, learned counsel for respondent no.5 and Sri Nithin Chandra M., learned counsel for respondent no.6 and Smt. Anuparna Bordoloi for impleading applicant.

¶39

2. Above Writ Petition is filed for following reliefs-

¶40

"(i) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order quashing the undated Impugned Notice received by the Petitioners on 05.06.2020 from the Respondent No.3 (vide Annexure-A) and the Impugned Order dated 03.07.2020 passed by the Respondent No.3 in NCR/CR/01/2020-21 (vide Annexure-D);

¶41

(ii) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order quashing the ImpugnedComplaint dated 09.07.2020 (vide Annexure-E) and consequently the Impugned FIR dated 24.07.2020 (vide Annexure-F) registered by the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force Police Station (i.e. the Respondent No.1 Police) in Crime No. 05/2020 pending before the Chief

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:26653 WP No. 9625 of 2020

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offences alleged under Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; Section 436A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976; and Sections 465, 457, 468, 471, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶46

(iii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order quashing the Letter dated 28.07.2020 (vide Annexure-H) issued by the Respondent No.1 to the Respondent No.4; and consequently direct the Respondent No.4 to defreeze the Petitioner No.1's Bank Account Nos. 144811100000973 and 14481110001051 and the Petitioner No.1's Fixed Deposits bearing Nos.144820100166215, 144820100166224, 144820100166242, 144820100166251; 144820100166233,

¶47

(iv) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order quashing the Letter dated 28.07.2020 (vide Annexure-K) issued by the Respondent No.1 to the Respondent No.5; and consequently direct the Respondent No.5 to defreeze the GT Accounts bearing Nos. 02891101000336 in the name of "George Thangiah Complex and 02891101000337 in the name of "Dakshina Musical Industries;

¶48

(iv) (a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order quashing the letter dated 10.08.2020 (vide Annexure-AU) issued by the

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:26653 WP No. 9625 of 2020

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

respondent no.1 to the respondent no.6; and consequently direct the respondent no.6 to defreeze the Account bearing No.1092000100152801 in the name of Late Mr.George Thangiah.

¶52

(v) to pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to suit the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶53

Sri K G Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri George Joseph, counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are challenging notice issued by at Ath Tahsildar as per Annexure-A, order passed in proceedings at and lottas t Annexure-D, complaint and FIR at Annexures-E

¶54

and F and letters at Annexures-H, K and AU etc. It was submitted FIR was registered on 24.07.2020 at Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force Police Station (BMTF) in Crime no.5/2020 and direction dated 28.07.2020 issued by respondents no.1 to 4 and respondents no.1 to 5 for freezing of accounts vide Annexures-H, K and AU for freezing of accounts.

¶55

Main ground urged by learned Senior Counsel was that proceedings at Annexures-A and D were not in conformity with decision of this Court in Smt. Lalitha Sastry v. State of

¶56

7 -

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:26653 WP No. 9625 of 2020

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Karnataka , reported in ILR 2008 KAR 4520 , and

¶60

proceedings in Annexures-E and F were in pursuance of order at Annexure-D, would not be sustainable on ground that Authority of BMTF to act as police station after lapse of period mentioned in Government order would be illegal as held by this Court in Sri Srinath Mangalore vs. The State of Karnataka, Urban Development Department, rep. by Principal Secretary and Others , reported in ILR 2018 KAR 4815 and confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. nos.2885 to 2887 of 2019 on 19.03.2024.

¶61

Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing availing for respondents no.1 to 3 fairly concedes to legal position availing from judgment in Srinath Mangalore (supra) insofar as Authority of BMTF to act as police station.

¶62

Sri Monesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.5 would submit that procedure adopted by Authorities for freezing of accounts was not in accordance with law and would support learned Senior Counsel and submits that they were illegal.

¶63

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:26653 WP No. 9625 of 2020

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Be that as it may, contention of petitioners as well as Bank Authorities insofar as directions for freezing of accounts is consequential to proceedings at Annexures-A, D, E and F and decisions in Srinath Mangalore and Smt. Lalitha Sastry (supra) would leave no doubt in mind of Court that Authority of BMTF to act as police station and registration of FIR on 24.07.2020 was beyond period of notification would be illegal and requires to be set at naught .

¶66

Likewise, perusal of notice at Annexure-A and order at Annexure-D is clear that procedure enumerated by this Court in Smt.Lalitha Sastry (supra) has not been followed. Authorities have failed to indicate location of karab land, which is alleged to have been encroached by petitioner in Sy.no.7/1a, 2 and 2/1 of Binnamangala, Manavarthe Kaval, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru.

¶67

For aforesaid reasons, Writ Petition is allowed . Impugned notice at Annexure-A, order at Annexure-D, complaint at Annexure-E, FIR at Annexure-F and directions impugned at Annexures-H, K and AU stand quashed.

¶68