Karnataka High Court
Sri K Muniraju vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 July, 2022
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
CRL.P No. 8699 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8699 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SRI K.MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DEVASANDRA VILLAGE
KR PURAM HOBLI
BENGALURU - 560 036.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDESH J.CHOUTA, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI KARTHIK V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY B.M.T.F. POLICE
BBMP, J.C.ROAD
Digitally signed
by PADMAVATHI
BK
BENGALURU - 560 001
Location: High REPRESENTED BY
Court of
Karnataka STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU -560 001
2. SRI N.R.RAMESH
EX- CORPORATOR AND
EX-RULING PARTY LEADER
-2-
CRL.P No. 8699 of 2021
BURHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HEAD OFFICE
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1
R2 - SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.21491/2018 (CR.NO.17/2017) ON THE FILE OF THE
CMM COURT, AT BENGALURU THE SAID PROCEEDINGS SO
FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question
the proceedings in C.C.No.21491/2018 registered for the
offence punishable under Section 441 of the Karnataka
Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'),
pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.17/2017.
2. Heard Sri Sandesh J. Chouta, learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.
CRL.P No. 8699 of 2021
K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent No.1.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that the issue in the lis stands
covered by plethora of judgments, whereby, inadvertence
in obtaining permission from the hands of the learned
Magistrate for registering an offence, which is non-
cognizable. The allegation in the case at hand is for an
offence punishable under Section 441 of the Act, which is
admittedly non-cognizable and the record would reveal
that the permission is not obtained from the learned
Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 441 of
the Act. Apart from the fact that no permission is being
taken from the learned Magistrate, the proceedings would
be vitiated.
4. The other issue is, whether the BMTF Police can
file a charge sheet against the petitioner, notwithstanding
that they are not declared to be a police station under the
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? The
CRL.P No. 8699 of 2021
said issue is no longer res integra, as a Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in Crl.P.No.5340/2012 and connected matters
disposed on 10.10.2013, interpreting the very same issue
has declared that the BMTF is not a police station.
5. The relevant para of the order in
Crl.P.No.5340/2012 and connected matters, is extracted:
"27) In the cases on hand, the allegations
made in the reports lodged by the private
individuals disclosed only commission of non-
cognizable offence/s. It was for that reason
only, the officer-in-charge of BMTF Police
Station submitted reports to the jurisdictional
Magistrate and sought permission to
investigate. The jurisdictional Magistrate in all
such cases has accorded permission and it was
thereafter the cases were registered and
investigation was taken-up. In none of these
cases, the informants approached the
Magistrate seeking a direction to the police for
investigation. Thus, the procedures adopted by
BMTF police in submitting reports to the
jurisdictional Magistrate and seeking
permission, are contrary to the provisions of
CRL.P No. 8699 of 2021
Section 155 of Cr.P.C. and the permission
accorded thereon by the Magistrate on such
requisitions, are without authority of law.
Therefore, the entire procedures adopted by
the BMTF police in registering the case are
contrary to the provisions of Section 155 of
Cr.P.C. and also opposed to the principles of
law laid-down in the aforesaid decision. In view
of this, the orders taking cognizance on the
charge sheets filed are vitiated, therefore, the
prosecutions launched are liable to be quashed.
Therefore, I answer Point No.2 accordingly.
Regarding Point No.3:
28) In the light of the findings on Point
Nos. 1 & 2, I do not think that it is necessary to
record any opinion on the question as to
whether in the facts and circumstances of the
case, sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was
condition precedent for the court taking
cognizance of the offences. Therefore, I refrain
from expressing any opinion on this aspect of
the matter."
CRL.P No. 8699 of 2021
Therefore, the answer to the issue that the BMTF is not
declared as a police and filing of charge sheet by them, is
untenable. In the light of both the issues stands covered
by the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as
extracted hereinabove, the petition deserves to succeed.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
i. The Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned proceedings in
C.C.No.21491/2018, pending before the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, stand
quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NVJ
