ORDER :

H.P. Sandesh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. Crl.P.No.2208/2019 is filed by the petitioner to quash entire criminal proceedings in C.C.No.32777/2018 on the file of 8^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore including charge sheet dated 13.12.2018, complaint and the FIR dated 01.10.2018 registered by the High Grounds Police Station, in Crime No.138/2018 for the offence under Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981 (‘KOPD Act’ for short).

3. Crl.P.No.7959/2018 is filed to quash complaint and FIR dated 01.10.2018 registered by the High Grounds Police Station, in Crime No.138/2018 presently on the file of the 8^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore for the offence under Section 3 of KOPD Act.

4. In Crl.P.No.7959/2018 filed by petitioner on behalf of M/s. Le Meridian, Bangalore, M/.s. Mac Charles (I) Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, in the cause title, address is mentioned. But, the petitioner mentioned in the petition that he is a Vice-President (Finance) and Company Secretary and while filing this petition, it is contented that on 12.01.2015, a demand notice was issued by respondent No.2 demanding payment of Hoardings and Billboards Taxes to an extent of Rs.86,800/- in respect of 1 number of Hoarding allegedly measuring 450 ft. erected by the petitioner on the property belonging to the petitioner. The second notice was issued on 19.08.2016 by the respondent No.2 demanding payment of illuminated Hoardings and Billboards taxes to an extent of Rs.7,13,435.52/- till June, 2026 in respect of 1 number of Hoarding allegedly measuring 20 x 15 sq. ft. erected by the petitioner on its property for years from 2009-2010 to 2015-2016. Further, direction was issued to remove the said Hoarding and structure displayed by the petitioner immediately. Hence, a writ petition was filed on 20.12.2016 challenging the demand notices and this Court was pleased to grant an interim order of stay of both the demand notices, subject to depositing 50% of the demand notices within 1 week from the date of order and relies upon the said order as well as communication of the interim order to the respondent No.2 and so also, compliance of the directions of the Court. When things stood thus, on 13.08.2018, respondent No.2 again started pressurizing the petitioner to remove the Hoarding and structure inspite of interim order and notice was also issued to respondent No.2 and Joint Commissioner and one more notice was issued on 24.08.2018 to the Executive Engineer of the BBMP and despite bringing to knowledge of various authorities of BPMP and communication of interim order, kept on pressurizing the petitioner to remove the said Hoarding, failing which they will lodge a complaint. Ultimately, case is registered in Crime No.138 of 2018. It is contented that respondent No.2 and other officials illegally, without any authority, as against the order of this Court, proceeded to lodge the complaint and case has been registered. Hence, it is contented in this petition that very initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner by respondent No.2 is false, frivolous and illegally acted upon in registering the criminal case and inspite of the respondent No.2 being bound by the order of this Court, in utter disrespect of the order, a criminal prosecution is initiated by registering the FIR. The civil dispute is given a criminal colour and ought not to have invoked criminal proceedings when the matter was ceased before this Court. It is also contented that it will not attract Section 3 of KOPD Act and the same cannot be invoked. It is not the case of respondent No.2 that petitioner has disfigured in the open place i.e., a public place as stipulated under the said Act. It is also not the case of respondents that this petitioner has set up a Hoarding and structure