Murarilal Agarwal vs Deputy Commissioner, Bellary District and Others

Budihal R.B., J.—Though this matter is listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of both sides, it is taken up for final disposal.

This petition is filed by the petitioner contending that on the observation, the 3rd respondent has apparently filed a complaint stating that a false declaration was given before the Tahsildar in seeking a certificate as an agricultural labourer and the said complaint was registered by the 4th respondent for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No. 164/2012 as at Annexure-E. The petitioner has no other remedy than to approach this Hon''ble Court by way of this writ petition. The petitioner has not filed any other writ petition on the same cause of action. So, the petitioner is aggrieved by the registration of the FIR in Crime No. 164/2012 produced as Annexure-E to this writ petition and he has sought for quashing the same.

It is alleged that the requirement of giving any declaration under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and if found to be false, would in itself amount to an offence under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. In the absence of the prohibition for purchase of the agricultural lands, the giving of such declaration whether false or otherwise would not be of any consequences and therefore giving of any false declaration would not constitute an offence. Giving of a false declaration in itself is made as an offence under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, it is a special offence and the general penal offence will not be attracted as otherwise, the same would not constitute an offence under the general penal law. If an act is a special often arising under a special law, the general penal offence cannot be attracted and would not constitute a general penal offence. Therefore, the registration of the crime for offence punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of the penal law is fallacious and without jurisdiction and hence requires to be quashed.

It is the contention of the petitioner that giving false declaration would be an offence under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act particularly under Sections 125(2A) and (2B) and these offence are punishable on conviction by a Magistrate for Rs. 1,000/-.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that the main contention of the respondents is that though the petitioner is non-agriculturist, by making false affidavit he purchased the property and hence the matter was enquired into by the respondents by issuing notice to him. Ultimately, respondent No. 2, the Assistant Commissioner, Bellary Sub-Division, Bellary, passed order dated 18.12.2012, which was produced as Annexure-F in W.P. No. 78519/2013. He submitted that, even according to the prosecution, the basis for initiating the criminal proceeding which is challenged in this petition is the order dated 18.12.2012 (Annexure-F in W.P. No. 78519/2013) passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Learned counsel made the submission that the present petitioner had challenged the order of respondent No. 2-Assistant Commissioner passed as per Annexure-F by filing W.P. No. 78519/2013 (LR). It is also his submission that considering the entire merits of the case, this Court ultimately disposed of the said writ petition by order dated 02.08.2014. In the said writ petition, Annexure-F passed by respondent No. 2 herein has been quashed. Hence, he submitted that when Annexure-F in W.P. No. 78519/2013 itself has been quashed by this court and the order of the learned single Judge has become final as the respondents have not preferred either revision or appeal against the order passed in the said writ petition, the very basis for registering the present criminal case and taking cognizance of the offences would lose its existence. Hence, he submitted that the proceedings may be quashed.

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate made the submission that even if Annexure-F has been quashed by the order of the learned single Judge, the criminal case which was registered against the present petitioner will have to be proceeded with and hence the matter cannot be quashed in this writ petition and he submitted to dismiss the same.

I have perused the grounds urged in the writ petition and other materials produced along with the petition. So also, I have perused the order passed by this Court dated 2nd August 2014 in W.P. No. 78519/2013 (LR).

Perusing the said order, the claims are in respect of the very same landed properties i.e., Sy. Nos. 907A, 907B and 902B totally measuring 19.94 acres, which was purchased through the sale deed dated 14.11.2007. Notice was issued under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner herein and after conducting the enquiry the respondent No. 2 passed an order that the petitioner has purchased the said landed property by swearing false affidavit. Hence, even it was observed to file a criminal complaint against the petitioner. But the said order of the Assistant Commissioner-respondent No. 2 herein bearing No/Rev/LRM/199/2012-13 dated 18.12.2012 vide Annexure-F was challenged by the present petitioner by filing a writ petition before this court in W.P. No. 78519/2013. This Court after considering the entire merits of the case and holding that the respondents initiated the proceedings under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act after a lapse of 5 years after acquiring the property ultimately came to the conclusion that the order at Annexure-F was not at all sustainable in law and accordingly, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed by respondent No. 2-Assistant Commissioner produced as Annexure-F. As submitted by both sides the said order has become final because the same is not challenged before any other forum questioning its validity or correctness.

For filing the present criminal proceedings, the basis for the respondents is the order dated 18.12.2012, which was produced as Annexure-F in W.P. No. 78519/2013. Accordingly, the complaint was filed by the Tahsildar, who is respondent No. 3 in this writ petition, and cognizance was taken by the concerned Court against the present petitioner for alleged offences in Crime No. 164/12. Considering the entire merits of the case. So also the documents produced in this case, I am of the opinion that there is no basis for the respondents to proceed against the present petitioner by filing such criminal complaint when the order dated 18.12.2012 passed by respondent No. 2 itself has been set aside by this Court in W.P. No. 78519/2013 (LR) by order dated 2nd August 2014. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated against the present petitioner by the respondent authorities in Crime No. 164/2012 of Kudithmi Police Station, Bellary are hereby quashed.