ORDER

This petition is filed by accused No.3 challenging the registration of crime for the offences punishable under Section 441 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. A complaint was lodged by respondent No.2 contending that he was the owner of the family property bearing Nos.8/1 and 8/2 on Vasanth Nagar Main Road, Bengaluru, which had been illegally occupied by a firm called M/s Raghava Reddy and Associates by defrauding his mother and grandmother.

3. It was stated that M/s Raghava Reddy and Associates on false documents had obtained a katha in their name but as per the directions of this Court, the Joint Commissioner, East Zone, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike (for short, 'BBMP') had reviewed the matter and cancelled the katha that had been registered in the name of Sri Raghava Reddy by an order dated 25.09.2014. It was stated that despite the cancellation of the katha, M/s Raghava Reddy and Associates, in collusion with the BBMP officials, had obtained and renewed the licence in the name of M/s Popular Advertising and erected six hoardings on the property and caused a huge loss to the BBMP.

4. In support of the application for renewal, affidavits were filed by M/s Raghava Reddy and Associates in the year 2015 in which they stated that they were the owners of the property and that they had paid property tax. The receipt number and the date on which the property tax was paid were, however, left blank. It is also stated that they had let out an area of the said premises to M/s Popular Advertisers to erect and display the commercial hoardings and that they had no objection to allow commercial hoardings on the said property. On the basis of this complaint, the FIR was registered as stated above and being aggrieved, the present petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the launching of the criminal prosecution against the petitioner cannot be sustained since there is admittedly inter se dispute between M/s Raghava Reddy and Associates and the complainant, and a civil suit is also pending between them for the very same property. He submits that the petitioner acted on the representation of M/s Raghava Reddy and Associates that they were the owners of the property and made an application for grant of a licence to erect hoardings. He also submits that the BBMP also did not grant a licence to the petitioner and the petitioner has not erected hoardings and therefore, the entire proceedings were misconstrued insofar as they were concerned.

6. Learned counsel on the other hand contends that though the katha had been cancelled in favour of M/s Raghava Reddy and Associates, an affidavit was filed saying that they were the owners and they were paying the property tax and this affidavit was submitted to the BBMP by the petitioner, obviously, in collusion and therefore, the prosecution was necessary even against the petitioner.

7. Admittedly, the complaint indicates that the katha made out in favour of M/s Raghava Reddy and Associates had been cancelled in the year 2014 itself, but nevertheless, affidavits of M/s Raghava Reddy and Associates has been filed by the petitioner stating that they were the owners of the property and were paying property tax. If the katha had been cancelled in favour of M/s Raghava Reddy and Associates, obviously this affidavit would be incorrect and the question as to whether the petitioner who was claiming under M/s Raghava Reddy and Associates had colluded with the M/s Raghava Reddy and Associates or was innocent of the fact that the katha had been cancelled is a matter which requires to be investigated and cannot be interfered with at this stage.

Therefore, this petition is dismissed.