- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6947 CRL.P No. 8222 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8222 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. SAMPATH RAJ JAIN S/O. P. KUNDANMAL, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, MANAGING PARTNER M/S. CONTINENTAL EXPORTERS NO.7, MILLER TANK BED AREA VASANTHA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 052. 2. SHRI SAPAN KUMAR JAIN SON OF SHRI. SAMPATH RAJ JAIN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, PARTNER M/S. CONTINENTAL EXPORTERS NO.7, MILLER TANK BED AREA VASANTHA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 052 3. SHRI. SANDEEP KUMAR JAIN, S/O SHRI K. SAMPATHRAJ JAIN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PARTNER M/S. CONTINENTAL EXPORTERS NO.7, MILLER TANK BED AREA, VASANTHA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 052. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. L.M. CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE, BBMP OFFICE Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6947 CRL.P No. 8222 of 2018 BUILDING, N.R. SQUARE BANGALORE - 560 002. 2. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1 SMT. SRIDEVI BHOSALE, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT ON THE FILE OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT BENGALURU CITY, IN CRIME NO.52/2018 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 441 OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT AND SEC.420 OF IPC. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners being accused Nos. 1 to 3 are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in Crime No.52 of 2018 of Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force (for short 'BMTF'), now pending before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, registered for the offences punishable under Section 441 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act (for short 'KMC Act') and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6947 CRL.P No. 8222 of 2018 2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 filed the complaint with BMTF against the petitioners alleging commission of the offences punishable under Section 441 of KMC Act and Section 420 of IPC. 3. It is the contention of the complainant that the petitioners have obtained the vacant land on lease by executing a lease deed. The petitioners have violated the terms of lease deed by subleasing the portion of the land to a third party and put the property into unauthorized use, which caused financial loss to BBMP and thereby committed cheating. Hence, the Commissioner of BBMP requested BMTF to initiate legal action. Accordingly, BMTF registered the FIR in Crime No.52 of 2018. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 4. Heard Sri L M Chidanandayya, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Smt. Sridevi Bhosale, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on records. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6947 CRL.P No. 8222 of 2018 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that prima facie the allegations discloses that the dispute is purely of civil nature which has given the colour of criminal offence only to pressurize the petitioners. Admittedly, the vacant land measuring 3,000 sq.ft belonging to BBMP was leased in favour of the petitioners under the lease deed produced as per Annexure-C. There was no bar for construction of a building over the vacant land and accordingly, the petitioners have put up construction in a portion of the land. Subsequently, the said portion was subleased in favour of a third party. Under such circumstances, the contention of the complainant that subleasing of the leased property is in violation of terms of lease deed and it amounts to trespassing and cheating, cannot be accepted. 6. Learned counsel submitted that a legal notice was issued by BBMP under sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 (for short 'KPP Act') seeking eviction of the petitioners. The said notice was challenged by the petitioners in MA.No.54/2011 before the learned XXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The said - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6947 CRL.P No. 8222 of 2018 appeal came to be allowed as per Annexure-P, upholding the contention of the petitioners that only the land was leased out. There was no recital in the lease deed prohibiting the petitioners from putting up the construction, therefore, the construction was legal. Under such circumstances, there was dual ownership i.e., BBMP being the owner of the land and the petitioners being the owner of the super structure. Hence, there is no bar for subleasing the super structure in favour of the third party, which is permissible under law. 7. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Laxmi Enterprises v/s The Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and Another1 in support of his contention. He submits that Section 441 of KMC Act and Section 420 of IPC is not at all attracted to the present case and prays for allowing the petition by quashing the criminal proceedings. 8. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 even though tried to oppose the contention taken by the petitioners, 1 ILR 2012 KAR 5474 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6947 CRL.P No. 8222 of 2018 fairly concedes that the decision of this Court in M/s Laxmi Enterprises (supra) is applicable to the facts of the present case and accordingly, pray for passing appropriate orders. 9. 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 Petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following: R E A S O N S 10. The facts of the case narrated above that, the land measuring 3,000 sq.ft belonging to BBMP was leased in favour of the petitioners under the lease deed dated 08.01.1976 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the subject matter of the lease deed is a vacant land. None of the recitals in the lease deed prohibits putting up of the construction by the petitioners. It is also admitted that the petitioners after getting the land on lease have put up the construction and the said construction - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6947 CRL.P No. 8222 of 2018 was subleased in favour of a third party and therefore, the complaint came to be filed. 11. It is also not in dispute that the notice by the Joint Commissioner, BBMP under sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the KPP Act was issued seeking eviction of the petitioners. It is also admitted that the said notice was challenged by filing the appeal in MA No.54/2011 before the learned XXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, who passed the order dated 17.09.2018 as per Annexure-P holding that, what was leased in favour of the petitioners is only a vacant land and super structure was built by the petitioners. The said super structure was leased in favour of third party. The Court held that there was dual ownership of the land and the super structure. 12. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Laxmi Enterprises (supra), where in, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court considered the facts in the said case which is similar to the present case and held that, when the vacant land is leased without there being any prohibitions from putting up the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6947 CRL.P No. 8222 of 2018 construction and when the lessee puts up the construction, the dual ownership can be applied. Hence, the petitioners become the owner of the building. Leasing of the said super structure will not violate any of the conditions of the lease and it will amount to sub-letting the lease hold property. The decision is aptly applicable to the facts of the present case. Admittedly, the eviction notice issued by BBMP under sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of KPP Act is already set aside as per order in Annexure-P. Even though, it is stated that the said order is challenged before this Court and it is pending consideration, the impugned order is not stayed. 13. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that there are no reasons to permit the criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioners as it would amount to infringement of the right of the petitioners and also abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed. 14. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Affirmative' and proceed to pass the following: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6947 CRL.P No. 8222 of 2018 ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The FIR registered in Crime No No.52 of 2018 of Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force, registered for the offences punishable under Section 441 of KMC Act and Section 420 of IPC, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE SPV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19