- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:305 CRL.P No. 295 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 295 OF 2020 BETWEEN: SRI. KALYAN RAMAN, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O LATE SEETHARAMA IYER, PRESENTLY R/AT TC 32/204/2, SITARAM MILL ROAD PENKUNNAM THRISSUR, KERALA - 680 002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SHARADI S. SETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BANGALORE METROPOLITAN, TASK FORCE, BBMP MAIN BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, NR RD, BENGALURU - 560 002. 2. SRI. SUHAIL AHMED, ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O NAZEER AHMED, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:305 CRL.P No. 295 of 2020 R/AT OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT, REVENUE OFFICER, VASANTH NAGAR SUB DIVISION, QUEENS ROAD, BBMP, BANGALORE - 560 002, BOTH THE RESPONDENTS ARE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.) …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED - UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.18557/2017 ON THE FILE OF C.M.M., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 441, 436(A) OF KARNATAKA MUNCIPAL CORPORATION ACT AND SECTION 420 OF IPC IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED (ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.13/2016 OF BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner being accused No.2 is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated and pending against him in C.C.No.18557/2017, on the file of the learned C.M.M., - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:305 CRL.P No. 295 of 2020 Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 441 and 436(A) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 ('the KMC Act' for short) and under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short) (arising out of crime No.13/2016 of Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force). 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the informant - respondent No.2 being the Assistant Revenue Officer in B.B.M.P. office, Bangalore filed the first information with the Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force (BMTF) alleging commission of offence by accused Nos.1 and 2, punishable under Sections 441 and 436(A) of the KMC Act and Section 420 of the IPC. It is alleged that on the basis of the complaint, the investigation was undertaken and the charge sheet came to be filed. As per the charge sheet, it is alleged that accused No.1 is the owner of M/s. OOH, advertising agency in Bangalore who entered into an agreement with B.B.M.P. on 14.12.2009. As per the terms of the agreement, accused No.1 constructed a bus shelter in queens road and erected advertising panels pertaining to accused No.1. Even though as per the terms of the agreement, the said advertisement was permitted to be displayed for a period of five years, accused Nos.1 and 2 in collusion with one - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:305 CRL.P No. 295 of 2020 another continued to exhibit the advertisement pertaining to accused No.1. Thereby caused revenue loss to the B.B.M.P. and committed the offence as stated above. Accordingly, the trial Court took cognizance of the offence and registered the criminal case against accused Nos.1 and 2. Being aggrieved by the same, accused No.2 is before this Court. 3. Heard P.P. Hegde, learned Senior Advocate for Smt. Sharadi S. Setty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. K.P. Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1. Perused the materials on records. 4. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner contended that accused No.2 is not a party to the agreement dated 14.12.2009 said to have been entered into between accused No.1 and the B.B.M.P. Secondly, it is his contention that accused No.2 is only one of the Directors of Kalyan Jewellers, which is the Company incorporated under Companies Act. Company is not made as a party. Thirdly, it is his contention that the only allegation made against the petitioner is that he colluded with accused No.1 and committed the offence. Under - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:305 CRL.P No. 295 of 2020 such circumstances, it is his contention that under criminal law there cannot be a vicarious liability against the Director of the Company when the Company itself is not a party. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that first information came to be filed with specific allegations and the charge sheet came to be filed by the Investigating Officer. Under such circumstances, the petitioner will have to face the trial and it is not a fit case for quashing the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?" My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:305 CRL.P No. 295 of 2020 R E A S O N S 7. The first information came to be filed by the Revenue Officer of B.B.M.P. alleging commission of offence under Sections 441 and 436(A) of the KMC Act and Section 420 of the IPC. After investigation the charge sheet came to be filed for the above said offences. It is the specific contention of prosecution that accused No.1 being the owner of M/s. OOH advertising agency entered into an agreement with B.B.M.P. on 14.12.2009 for construction of bus shelter in queens road, Bangalore and to display the advertisement pertaining to Kalyan Jewellers for a period of five years. Even after lapse of five years, the said advertisement pertaining to Kalyan Jewellers was not removed and thereby accused No.1 being the representative of M/s. OOH advertising agency and accused No.2 being the Director of Kalyan Jewellers have caused financial loss to the B.B.M.P. and there by committed the offence. 8. The first contention that was arised by learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner is that Kalyan Jewellers is a Company, which is not arrayed as accused. Petitioner is only - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:305 CRL.P No. 295 of 2020 one of the Directors and he is not vicariously liable for the criminal law. He produced Annexure - E issued by Government of India - Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Accordingly, Kalyan Jewellers India Private limited is a Company incorporated on 29.01.2009 under the Companies Act. The petitioner is one of the Directors of the Company. The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in RAVINDRANATHA BAJPE Vs. MANGALORE SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LIMITED AND ORS1, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court referring to its earlier decision categorically held that merely because accused is a Managing Director/Chairman of a Company, he cannot be held vicariously liable unless there are specific allegations or averments against him with respect to his individual role. When prima facie, Kalyan Jewellers is a Company and it is not arrayed as one of the accused, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, who is only a Director cannot be proceeded with. 9. The next contention taken by the learned Senior Advocate is that there is no previty of contract between the 1 (2022) 15 SCC 430 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:305 CRL.P No. 295 of 2020 B.B.M.P. and the petitioner. Even according to the charge sheet, the agreement was entered into between accused No.1 and B.B.M.P. on 14.12.2009. Copy of the agreement is produced for perusal of the Court and admittedly neither the Kalyan Jewellers Company nor the petitioner is a party to the said criminal proceedings. Under such circumstances, prima facie there is no previty of contract between the two. 10. Thirdly, the contention of learned Senior Advocate is that, the only allegation made against the petitioner is that he colluded with accused No.1 and the advertisement continued to be displayed in the bus shelter. On going through the charge sheet, I find that there is no allegation for having committed any of the offence by the petitioner in his individual capacity and under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of the process of law and hence, the same is liable to be quashed. Learned senior advocate for the petitioner submitted that at present, the criminal proceedings is pending in LGC(T).240/2024 on the file of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court. Page No.8 Retyped and Replaced vide court order dated: 20/01/2025 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:305 CRL.P No. 295 of 2020 11. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The criminal petition is allowed. (ii) The criminal proceedings in LGC(T).240/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 441, 436(A) of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act and Section 420 of IPC in so far as the petitioner is concerned arising out of Crime No.13/2016 pending on the file of Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE JY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0 CT: BHK Page No.9 Retyped and Replaced vide court order dated: 20/01/2025