SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Kar) 516

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Sri K.Y. Nanjegowda, S/o. Late Yallegowda and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The Station House Officer, Malur Police Station, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Karnataka and Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.22072 Of 2022 (GM-RES)
Decided On : 01-09-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sri. Sandesh J. Chouta, Sr. Adv. a/w., Sri. R. Shashi Kumar.
For the Respondents: Sri. Mahesh Shetty, Sri. S. Umapathi.

The power entrusted to public representatives is a trust, and they are accountable for its exercise. Investigations into allegations of misuse of power should be conducted regardless of the status of the accused.

Headnote:

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - The Act provides for the constitution of committees for the grant of lands. Sections 192-A and 192-B of the Act specify offenses and penalties related to cheating and abetment of offenses. The court examines these sections in relation to the allegations in the complaint and concludes that they cannot be alleged against public servants.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenge the registration of a private complaint against them for granting lands to ineligible persons. The complaint is based on allegations of fabricated documents and bogus records. The complainant seeks to register a complaint before the police, but it is declined due to a pending investigation against the former Tahsildar. The complainant then files a private complaint, which is referred for investigation by the Special Court. The petitioners approach the court to challenge the reference for investigation. The court grants an interim stay on the proceedings, citing the pendency of the investigation in the first complaint. The issue is whether the reference for investigation should be allowed to continue. The court examines the allegations in the complaint and finds that they constitute cognizable offenses. The court concludes that the reference for investigation is in accordance with the law and not in violation of previous judgments. The petition is rejected and the interim stay is dissolved.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzes the allegations in the complaint and the registration of the first complaint against the former Tahsildar. The court finds that the offenses alleged in the second complaint are different from those in the first complaint. The court also examines the endorsement issued by the police, which declines to register the second complaint due to the pending investigation in the first complaint. The court concludes that the reference for investigation is justified and in accordance with the law.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determines that the reference for investigation is valid and not in violation of previous judgments. The court emphasizes that the power entrusted to public representatives is a trust and they are accountable for its exercise. The court highlights the importance of conducting investigations into allegations of misuse of power, regardless of the status of the accused.

Result: The petition is rejected and the interim stay on the proceedings is dissolved.

ORDER :

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question registration of a private complaint by the 2nd respondent in P.C.R.No.15366 of 2022 before the XLII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Since the 1st petitioner is a member of the Legislative Assembly, it is posted before this special Bench.

2. Facts, adumbrated are as follows:-

The 1st petitioner at the relevant point in time was Chairman of the Land Grant Committee, Malur Taluk (‘the Committee’ for short) being a Member of the Legislative Assembly from Malur Constituency in Kolar District. The other petitioners are other Members of the Committee which was constituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (‘the Act’ for short). The 2nd respondent is the complainant who sought to set the criminal law in motion claiming to be an activist and a public spirited person. On the allegation that when the 1st petitioner was the Chairman and other petitioners were Members of the Committee, have on the basis of fabricated documents and on creating bogus records, granted lands to several persons who were not eligible to be granted lands and thereby eaten away public property by granting lands to benami people, the 2nd respondent seeks to register a complaint before the jurisdictional Police on 30-08-2022.

3. Initially, on 02-12-2019 a complaint was registered against the former Tahsildar by one B. Nagaveni, Tahsildar at the relevant point in time alleging that he has illegally transferred the said lands which becomes a crime in Crime No.276 of 2019 for offences punishable under Sections 192-A and 192-B of the Act. When the investigation was in progress, the 2nd respondent seeks to register another complaint before the jurisdictional police against all these petitioners for different offences albeit, the cause being grant of lands. This is declined to be registered by the jurisdictional Police on the ground that there is already a crime registered and the investigation is pending in the crime so registered against the Tahsildar. When such an endorsement was given to the 2nd respondent/complainant, he then approaches the Special Court for trial of cases filed against sitting as well as former MPs/MLAs, triable by Magistrate invoking Section 200 of the CrPC by filing a private complaint. The concerned Court, by a detailed order dated 15-10-2022 seeks to refer the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Immediately thereafter, the petitioners have approached this Court in the subject petition. This Court in terms of its order dated 18-11-2022 interdicted the proceedings and, therefore, no investigation has taken place pursuant to the reference made by the learned Magistrate.

4. Heard Sri Sandesh J.Chouta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri S. Umapathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

5. The learned senior counsel would contend that the first complaint related to the very same subject matter of grant of lands. The said complaint results in becoming a crime in Crime No.276 of 2019 registered on 02-12-2019 against the Tahsildar for offences punishable under Sections 192-A and 192-B of the Act. The investigation in the case is still on. During the pendency of investigation in the said case, the complainant seeks to register another complaint. This is declined to be registered as a FIR on the score that there is already a case pending investigation before the jurisdictional Police. The private complaint filed thereafter which is now referred to investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., if permitted to continue would result in multiple FIRs being registered against the petitioners, which is hit by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T.T. ANTONY v. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS, (2001)

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              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

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top