Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
Smt. Aruna Kannur, D/o. R.G. Pujar & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Karnataka, By Kengeri Police Station, Rep. by Public Prosecutor & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 13059 of 2019 (GM-RES) c/w Writ Petition No. 27468 of 2019 (GM-RES)
Decided On : 12-09-2022
Schedule caste and schedule tribes (prevention of atrocities) act, 1989 – Section 3(1)(g), (1)(p), (1)(q), (1)(u), (1)(z), (1)(zc), (2)(va), 4, (2)(b) - Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 200, 156(3), 482, 173(2), 154(1), (3)– Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 405, 406, 420, 34 - Electricity Act, 2003 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226, 21 - POA Rules - Rule 7 and 5 - Apartment - Defaulted in Payment of Maintenance Charges - Whether this Court ought to exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and quash complaint or investigation is required - Whether trial Court could refer matter for investigation to Asst. Commissioner of Police instead of Station House Officer - Whether Association would be entitled to disconnect electricity supply in event of non-payment of charges towards common amenities and/or maintenance charges - Whether merely because apartments have been developed by BDA, could apartments be not subject to provisions of Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 - Whether on basis of complaint it could be said that any offences punishable under Section 3(1)(g), 3(1)(p), 3(1)(q), 3(1)(u), 3(1)(z), 3(1)(zc), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(va), 4 and 4(2)(b) of POA Act have been made out - Whether complaint filed is in compliance with decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P - Whether order of the learned Magistrate referring matter for investigation is required to be interfered with. [Para 11]
Finding of the Court: Decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Neeharika’s case though has stated that normally this Court should not come in way of investigation, but has also has observed that in appropriate cases this Court ought to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash any complaint which may be an abuse of process of Court - Magistrate in order of cognizance and direction for investigation has held as under; “Complainant present head on side of complainant and perused complaint and documents and also perused application filed for restoration of power supply - A perusal of above, order of reference does not indicate any application of mind made by Magistrate as regards offences alleged against petitioners - Order passed by Magistrate is completely laconic and not in accordance with law of dicta laid down by this Court in various matters, as also that by Hon’ble Apex Court - It is but required of Magistrate while ordering investigation to have applied his mind which application is required to be shown from order passed by him/her - Order does not even refer to provision with which allegations have been made, there is no reference to how an offence has been committed, more so when there are allegations made as regards a provision which did not even exist as on that date - If there is no application of mind in setting criminal law in motion, such an order is required to be set-aside - Order passed by Magistrate in the present matter qualifies for being set-aside - In view of above finding, complaint itself being an abuse of process of court, there would be no purpose served by further investigation and subjecting petitioners to such investigation on basis of false complaint.
Result: W.P. are allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key legal points:
The law specifies that any person who commits an offence under the relevant provisions, knowing that the person or property belongs to a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, shall be punishable with appropriate penalties and liable to fine [Point of Law].
The order of a Magistrate referring a matter for investigation must demonstrate application of mind, including clear reference to the provisions invoked and the specific offences alleged. An order lacking such reasoning can be set aside for non-compliance with legal standards [Para 11].
Investigation under criminal law should proceed in accordance with statutory provisions, and the Magistrate’s role is to direct the police to investigate, not to conduct a trial or assess the veracity of allegations at that stage. Orders that bypass the proper procedure or do not specify the investigating officer are liable to be quashed (!) (!) (!) .
The powers of courts under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code are to be exercised sparingly and primarily to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. Courts should not interfere in investigations unless there is clear evidence of mala fide, abuse, or absence of any prima facie offence (!) (!) (!) .
The jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings is limited to cases where the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence or are manifestly frivolous or mala fide. The court should not delve into the merits or test the truth of the allegations at this stage; instead, it should focus on whether the allegations, on their face, disclose a cognizable offence (!) (!) .
When allegations involve offences under specific protective legislation, such as the POA Act, the complaint must satisfy the ingredients of the offence, including wrongful dispossession, intimidation, or discrimination, and must not be used as a tool for harassment or abuse (!) (!) (!) .
Compliance with procedural requirements, such as filing an affidavit or demonstrating prior complaints and attempts to resolve the issue, is essential to uphold the validity of a complaint under certain legal standards. Failure to do so can justify quashing proceedings (!) (!) .
The authority to investigate under special legislation, such as the POA Act, generally rests with officers of a specified rank, and the Magistrate’s role is to refer the matter for investigation to the appropriate police officer, not to designate or appoint the investigating officer directly (!) (!) .
Disconnection of essential services like electricity, especially when done without proper legal authority or on discriminatory grounds, can constitute an offence under applicable legislation, and such actions can be challenged in courts as unlawful or wrongful interference (!) (!) (!) .
The courts emphasize that criminal proceedings should be initiated based on credible, sufficient, and non-frivolous allegations, and that the process should not be misused to settle personal or political scores. The court’s primary concern is to prevent abuse of the judicial process while ensuring genuine cases are investigated (!) (!) (!) .
The court has the authority to quash criminal proceedings if it finds that the complaint is an abuse of process, false, vexatious, or filed with ulterior motives, and that continuing the investigation would serve no purpose or cause undue hardship (!) (!) .
The order of the court in this case exemplifies the exercise of inherent jurisdiction to prevent misuse of the legal process, leading to the quashing of the complaint, FIR, and investigation, along with imposing costs on the complainant for abuse of the process [Result].
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this document.
ORDER :
1. In W.P. No.13059/2019 the petitioner No.1 who is accused No.1 and petitioner No.2 who is accused No.5 are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs :
(a) The complaint registered in PCR No.68/2018 produced at Annexure-E pending the file of the LXXI Addn. City and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru in PCR No.68/2012l;
(b) The order dated 27.12.2018 produced at Annexure-G referring the private complaint to the respondent No.1 Police for Investigation under section 156(3) of the code of criminal procedure, 1908;
(c) The order dated 29.12.2018 produced at Annexure-G referring the 'supplementary complaint" to the Respondent No.1 police for investigation u/s 156(3) of the code of criminal procedure, 1908;
(d) And the entire proceedings pending on the file of the LXXI Addn. City and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru in PCR No.68/2012;
II. Consequently, quash the FIR produced at Annexure-J in Crime No.82/2019 registered by the Kengeri Police Station, Bengaluru for offences punishable u/s 3(1)(g), 3(1)(p), 3(1)(q), 3(1)(u), 3(1)(z), 3(1)(zc), 3(2)(va) and section 4 of the schedule caste and schedule tribes (prevention of atrocities) act, 1989 in so far as the petitioners herein;
III. Issue direction to initiate prosecution of the complainant/respondent No.2 for abuse of process of law.
IV. Issue such order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.
2. In W.P. No.27468/2019 the petitioner who is accused No.2 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs :
b. Quash the orders dated 27.12.2018 and referring to the private complaint No.68/2018 to the respondent no.1 Police for Investigation u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. annexure-C.
c. Quash the FIR in Crime No.82/2019 dated 13.03.2019 registered in the Kengeri Police Station, Bengaluru for offences punishable u/s 3(1)(g), 3(1)(p), 3(1)(q), 3(1)(u), 3(1)(z), 3(1)(zc), 3(2)(va) and section 4 of the SC & ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Annexure-E, so far as the petitioner herein concerned.
d. Pass such other order deemed necessary having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The facts in both the matters are the same. The facts are :
3.2. It is contended that the affairs of the said apartment is run by an Association formed under Deed of declaration in terms of the byelaws forming part of the Deed of declaration.
3.3. There are office bearers who are elected to the Executive committee of the Association viz., [for short ‘Association’]. The governing council of the Association consists of 31 members including 9 office bearers or members of the Executive Committee, all of who are nominated or elected by the governing body. The governing council having two members from each block, there being 11 blocks, the governing council and the Executive Committee is in-charge of the day-today affairs of the Association and the executive committee comprising of 9 office bearers viz., President, Vice-President, Secretary, 4 Joint Secretaries, Treasurer and a Joint Treasurer, who would exercise powers and perform all duties for the proper administration of the Association. One of the powers and duties being in terms of Rule 3(i) of the Rules as under:
“3(i) Collect the monthly assessments towards common expenses, contributions towards Sinking Fund, corpus Fund, and
3(2)(va) commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such m....
Point of Law : Revisional powers of the High Court can only be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
The court upheld that cognizance of electricity theft offences can be taken on authorized complaints and clarified that the 2007 amendment allows police reports for cognizance, applicable retrospecti....
The Court ruled that cases of alleged electricity theft fall under Section 135 rather than Section 126 of the Electricity Act, stressing the importance of jurisdiction in disputed factual matters.
Consumer Commissions lack subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate or review statutory actions initiated by electricity authorities under the Electricity Act, 2003, such as proceedings regarding the....
Only lawful occupiers are entitled to electricity supply under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, and the petitioner failed to prove his legal occupancy.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
