Back
2018 Supreme(Kar) 353
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B.A. PATIL, J.
Sri Srinath Mangalore S/o Narasimha Mangalore and Ors - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Karnataka Urban Development Department Represented by Principal Secretary Vidhana Soudha and Ors - Respondent
Writ Petition No.26160, 26162 of 2013 (GM-RES) c/w. Criminal Petition No.2459 of 2013
Decided on : 26-09-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri C.V. Nagesh, Senior Advocate a/w Sri Satish V., Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri M. Diwakar Maddur, HCGP, Sri G.R.Prakash, Advocate
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code,1860 - Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act - Sections 420, 406, 201 120B r/w. Section 34 and Section 321 - FIR - Quash - Case there is gross abuse of process of law which will result in infringement of constitutional rights of petitioners including fundamental rights and other legal rights- He submitted that complaint on face value did not disclose any offence whatsoever much less offences any provisions of IPC and as such same is liable to be set aside- He further submitted that complaint which is filed against petitioners-accused was without jurisdiction- He further submitted that BMTF Police Station is confined to register case and to investigate same in respect of offences purported to have been committed IPC if they are committed along with offences KMC Act or allied Acts but case registered by BMTF Police only discloses that offences alleged are mainly covered appears to be only an innovative method resorted by BMTF Police so as to somehow lug complaint into its jurisdiction though there is no offence made out –Held, Court on same day with remand application as per Annexure - When Deputy Superintendent of Police issued a notice by fixing for production of documents then under such circumstances before said date apprehension of accused-petitioners amounts to nothing but depravation of right and personal liberty of accused-petitioners and above said proposition of law is squarely applicable to case on hand- It is also well settled principle of law that personal liberty of an individual is of widest amplitude covering variety of rights- Its deprivation shall be only as per procedure prescribed and Indian Evidence Act- If said liberty is curtailed by wrongful arrest or detention without due process of law said arrest becomes illegal and unauthorized and it will be a wrongful arrest and detention BMTF were not having any authority to arrest and detain accused-petitioners- As held in this order as well as earlier orders of this Court power of BMTF is limited and it is not having a power of ‘general police station’ to take cognizance of any of offences IPC- In that light arrest which has been made is not justifiable- Hence persons who have exercised their power without any authority then such circumstances it will be a wrongful detention and confinement and as such compensation has to be paid accused-petitioners in this regard Deputy General Manager with high reputation- If they have been apprehended and detained though they were not liable to be arrested then under such circumstances court of considered opinion that they are be compensated in terms of money- Though amount which is going to be awarded by this Court as compensation is not going get back liberty which they have lost during said tenure however reasonable compensation is awarded in this behalf- In that light Chief Secretary Government of Karnataka is directed each petitioners herein compensation for their wrongful detention and confinement and thereafter said amount is to be recovered from concerned erring officers/officials it would meet ends of justice – Petition allowed
1. WP.No.26160/2013 is filed by accused No.14; WP.No.26162/2013 is filed by accused No.15; and Criminal Petition No.2459/2013 is filed by accused Nos.3, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 11, praying to quash the complaint dated 18.4.2013 in Crime No.76/2013 registered by BMTF Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 201 120B r/w. Section 34 and Section 321 of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act (‘KMC Act’ for short).
2. I have heard the Senior Learned counsel Sri C.V.Nagesh appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
3. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that in the instant case there is gross abuse of process of law which will result in infringement of constitutional rights of the petitioners including fundamental rights and other legal rights. He submitted that the complaint dated 18.4.2013 on its face value did not disclose any offence whatsoever much less the offences under any provisions of IPC and as such the same is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the complaint which is filed as against the petitioners-accused was without jurisdiction. He further submitted that BMTF Police Station is confined to register the case and to investigate the same in respect of the offences purported to have been committed under the IPC if they are committed along with the offences under the KMC Act or allied Acts, but the case registered by BMTF Police only discloses that the offences alleged are mainly covered under the IPC and even Section 321B of KMC Act appears to be only an innovative method resorted to by BMTF Police so as to some how lug the complaint into its jurisdiction though there is no offence made out under Section 321B of the KMC Act. He further submitted that the said complaint does not say that the jurisdictional Officer has exercised the power to prevent any deviation or construction. He further submitted that the complaint without there being any offence committed by the petitioners under the Special Act like Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, Bangalore Development Authority Act, The Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act and other allied ten Acts as notified, the BMTF police have absolutely no jurisdiction to register the case as against the accused-petitioners and therefore the same is liable to be quashed on this score itself. He further submitted that there is no evidence much less prima facie material in the complaint if it is read as a whole to establish any of the offences and as such BMTF ought not to have acted upon the same. The act of BMTF is nothing but abuse of process of law by filing a false complaint. He further submitted that though the petitioners were not arrayed as accused and at the initial stage, a notice has been given to produce certain documents and without giving sufficient opportunity the accused- petitioners were apprehended and wrongfully detained without there being any sanction of law. He further submitted that though the accused-petitioners were produced before the jurisdictional Court and they have been remanded, the BMTF were not having any authority to arrest and they are not the police officers in the eye of law and even the period of detention and remand will amount to wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement without legal authority. In that light, he submitted that for having illegally detained the petitioners without sanction of law the respondent-State are liable to pay damages or compensation. He further submitted that the registration of case has no sanction of law. He further submitted that in earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioners-accused this Court already has come to the conclusion that there is no violation and even then a false case has been registered. He further submitted that the principles of res judicata will also apply to the criminal cases. He further submitted that the BMTF is not a Police Station in general sense so as to register the case
