- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1251 CRL.P No. 3241 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3241 OF 2018 BETWEEN: M/S. OOH ADVERTISING NO.1627, 1ST FLOOR, JAYPEE TOWERS, EAST END ROAD, JAYANAGAR 9TH BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 069, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. AMIT KUMAR, S/O. LATE RAMESH CHAND, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, J.C. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002, BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE BENGALURU METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE, BENGALURU BY ITS INSEPCTOR OF POLICE STATE OF KARNATAKA - 560 002 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THE BENGALURU METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE, BBMP MAIN BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, BENGALURU - 560002, REPRESENTED BY STATE, HIGH COURT, BENGALURU - 560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1251 CRL.P No. 3241 of 2018 SRI. H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2 SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R3) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.18557/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE C.M.M., BANGALORE AS BEING ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT. THIS CRL.P, 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.1 in Crime No.13/2016 pending in C.C.No.18557/2017, on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him for the offence punishable under Sections 441, 436(A) of The Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act (for short ' KMC Act') and under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code ( for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the Assistant Revenue Officer, BBMP, Bangalore, Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force (for short 'BMTF'). 2. Heard Sri. V B Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for Sri. H - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1251 CRL.P No. 3241 of 2018 Devendrappa, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.3. Perused the materials on records. 3. 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: R E A S O N S 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is arrayed as accused in his individual capacity. BMTF is not a police station as held by this Court in various decisions and therefore, it could not have registered the FIR and investigate into the matter. 5. The second contention is that, the reference to the bus shelter at Queens road never finds place in the agreement - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1251 CRL.P No. 3241 of 2018 dated 14.012.2009 referred to by the complainant and under such circumstances, the criminal proceedings is to be quashed. However, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 is not in a position to say anything on the merits of the case. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.3 submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Chennakeshava v/s The State of Karnataka1 held that, the authority of BMTF is extended from time to time by issuing the Government Orders and therefore, the contention that BMTF is not a Police Station and it do not have any authority to register and investigate into the matter cannot be accepted. 7. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Chennakeshava (supra) referred to various orders issued by the Government from time to time and held that BMTF is having authority to investigate into the matter and file the charge sheet, but however, it is the duty of the Magistrate to split up the case with regard to IPC offence and commit the same to the Special Court since the offence alleged in the said 1 Crl.RP.No.294/2024, DD 20.12.2024 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1251 CRL.P No. 3241 of 2018 petition was relating to land grabbing. But in the present case, the offences under KMC Act is invoked along with Section 420 of IPC and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, BMTF is not having authority either to register the FIR and investigate into the matter cannot be accepted. 8. Regarding second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the bus shelter at Queens road do not find place in Annexure-A - the agreement dated 14.12.2009. In the complaint, the complainant refers to the bus shelter situated at Queen road, Vasanthanagar Bengaluru and complains that unauthorized advertisement is displayed in the bus shelter which caused loss to BBMP. While filing the charge sheet also there is reference to bus shelter in queens road and it is stated that there is violation of terms of the agreement dated 14.12.2009. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced copy of the agreement dated 14.12.2009 entered into by the petitioner and BBMP along with Annexure-A appended to the agreement. As per clause 1 found in page No.2 of the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1251 CRL.P No. 3241 of 2018 agreement, the licensor i.e., BBMP has granted permission to the licensee i.e., OOH Advertising Pvt Ltd to construct bus shelters at various locations specified in Annexure - A, in accordance with the designs, specifications, subject to limitations, terms and conditions by duly dismantling the existing dilapidated bus shelter(if any). Annexure - A appended to the said agreement contained the list of bus shelter but strangely, there is no bus shelter which is referred to be in existence or to be constructed at queens road. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is not in a position to explain as to how the offence is made out against the petitioner. Prima facie I do not find any support for the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer and hence, I am of the opinion that, continuation of the criminal proceedings is in abuse of process of law. 10. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1251 CRL.P No. 3241 of 2018 (ii) The proceedings against accused No.1 in C.C.No.18557/2017, on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 441, 436(A) of The Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act and under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE SPV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22