Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 18278
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2 OF 2024 (482)
BETWEEN:
1. S JAGADISH, S/O LATE M SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, SAROJA NILAYA NO.1, KIRLOSKAR LAYOUT, HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD, CHIKKASANDRA CROSS ROAD, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE-560073.
PRESENT ADDRESS NO.2/5 SRILAKAM NILAYA, ANJANADRI LAYOUT, SHETTIHAI, BANGALORE-560073.
2. S BALAJI, Dig itally signed by BS S/O LATE M SUBRAMANYAM, RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, Location:
HIGH SAROJA NILAYA NO.1, COURT OF KARNATAKA KIRLOSKAR LAYOUT, HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD, CHIKKASANDRA CROSS ROAD, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE-560073.
PRESENT ADDRESS NO.328/1, SUBRAM ARCHED, MALELSHPALYA, 5TH MAIN, C V RAMANNAGAR, BENGALURU-560075.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. UMAPATHI.S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE BY BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE (BMTF), REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001. 2. MR S MUNIRAJU, MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O K M SONAPPA, N.18, LAKE VIEW DEFENSE COLONY, SHETTYHALLI, JALAHALLI WEST POST, BANGALORE-560015.
3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE (BMTF), BMTF POLICE STATION, N R SQUARE BBMP PREMISES, BANGALORE-560002.
4. THE DY SUPERINTENDENT OF POICE, BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE (BMTF), N R SQUARE BBMP PREMISES, BANGALORE-560002.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.A. BELLIAPPA.,SPP FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN L.G.C (T) CRIMINAL) NO.169/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION SPL.COURT AT BENGALURU AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 192A OF KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT AND SEC.420 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC,.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have challenged the prosecution launched against them by respondent No.1 in C.C.No.5877/2023 pending trial before the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court at Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and Section 420 read with Section
34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Respondent No.1 registered a case in Crime No.99/2016 on the information furnished by respondent No.2 on 04.08.2016 that the petitioners had encroached into survey No.57 of Shettihalli Gate Palya (Shettahalli village).
He claimed that survey was conducted on 08.05.2015 which revealed that the petitioners had encroached into a portion of survey No.57. He alleged that the Assistant Executive Engineer of Shettihalli Sub-Division was informed to remove the encroachment by the petitioners. He alleged that on 18.06.2015 petitioner No.2 appeared at an enquiry and claimed that his brother had purchased the property, where they had constructed a building, after obtaining appropriate plan and license from the BBMP Dasarahalli. He claimed that they had obtained NOC from Bengaluru Development Authority for the construction of houses and that BBMP had issued a commencement certificate. He claimed that they did not encroach into any portion of land in survey No.57 and that no Raja Kaluve ran through survey No.57. He claimed that the property which they purchased was converted for non-agricultural residential use and that they verified the Village Map, which revealed that no Raja Kaluve ran through in survey No.57. The respondent No.2 alleged that on 21.09.2015, the Additional Director of Town Planning Dasarahalli zone and the Raja Kaluve Division BBMP had conducted inspection and found that 260 square meters of Raja Kaluve was encroached. The respondent No.2 alleged that, he along with some officials of the Town Planning Department and the Surveyor visited the property and found that 15 meters from the center of the Raja Kaluve which was to be reserved as a buffer was used up by the petitioners for putting up construction. Based on this, respondent No.1 registered a case in Crime No.99/2016 for the offences punishable under Section 436(A), 321(B) of The Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (KMC Act) and 217 of Indian Penal Code and took up investigation. A charge-sheet was thereafter laid for the offences punishable under Section 192(A) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Section 420 of IPC.
3. The Trial Court took cognizance in C.C.No.5877/2023. In view of Section 20 of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1964. The case was transferred to the Special Court who registered L.G.C (T) (Criminal) No.169/2023 and issued process to the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the order issuing process to the petitioners, they have approached this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned prosecution of the petitioners is liable to be quashed on more than one ground. He submitted that the offences alleged against the petitioners were all non- cognizable and therefore, the mandatory procedure as prescribed under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C was not complied. He further contends that respondent No.1 is not authorized to investigate the offences punishable under Section 192(A) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act (KLR Act). He also contended that no survey was conducted in the presence of the petitioners and therefore, an offence punishable under Section 192(A) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act was not made out. He also contended that the petitioners have been prosecuted to meet the personal and political vendetta of respondent No.2 which was evident from the fact that respondent No.4 had conducted a spot inspection after nearly six and half years after the FIR was registered. He therefore contends that the impugned prosecution is liable to be quashed on the above grounds.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor representing the respondent No.1 fairly submitted that the offences alleged aga
