Ramegowda vs State of Karnataka and Others

Rathnakala, J.—The petitioner herein is arrayed as accused No. 8 in the case registered by the Lokayuktha Police in respect of the offences under Sections 114 , 119 , 120B , 167 , 218 , 420 , 464 , 465 , 468 , 470 , 471 of IPC and Sections 9 , 13(1)(b)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the complaint of second respondent.

The complaint allegation pertains to use of the land granted by the Government for the purpose other than the terms of the grant.

To put it in a nutshell, the Government granted/sanctioned an extent of 15 acres 31 guntas in Sy. No. 89 re-numbered as Sy. No. 92 of Hulimavu village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore, in favour of "Sri. Ramalingeshwara Swamy Temple Trust" (''the Trust'' for short) situated at Hulimavu village, vide order dated 9.3.1981. Complainant is one of the Trustees of the said Trust. The condition of grant was that the land shall be maintained open without putting up any structures in and around the temple (since it is a very ancient temple). In 1990, additional land of 10 guntas in Sy. No. 63 of the same village was granted to drill borewell for the purpose of the temple. Some vested interests created a Trust and negotiated with accused No. 1 to transfer the property so granted by the Government in favour of first accused.

Further it is alleged that, one late Mariyappa Swamiji proclaiming to be the President of the Trust created documents with the connivance of concerned Government Officers as if the Government has passed order No. RD.234 LGB dated 2.4.1997 granting approval for transferring the granted land to accused No. 1. By virtue of the said order, the Revenue Authorities have mutated the property in the name of the Adichunchanagiri Maha Samsthana Accused No. 8/petitioner herein worked as the then Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, without looking into the original grant and the manipulations by accused Nos. 1 and 2, issued certificate to use the land of the Trust to run a CBSE School. The transfer of the land belonging to the Trust in favour of Adichunchanagiri Maha Samsthana vide document No. 7 is bogus and no such order or record is in existence. Much against the interest of the temple and principles and objects of the Trust, late Mariyappa Swami acted as an owner of the assets of the temple and unilaterally manipulated in handing over the property in favour of the Mutt without any authority. The first accused sold the granted land of 10 guntas in Sy. No. 63 in favour of Mariyappa Swami as his personal property. This is against the terms of the grant order. Mariyappa Swami in collusion with accused Nos. 6 and 7 entered his personal name in the RTC. Accused No. 1 and late Mariyappa Swami conspired with each other to create a sale deed in respect of the property belonging to the Trust. Accused No. 1 thereafter sold the granted land in favour of an individual. Without notice to the Khathedar, the co-accused have mutated the name. The Government is alleged to have sanctioned the approval of transfer of the land belonging to the Trust, but no such sanction is in existence. Adichunchanagiri Maha Samsthana started unauthorized construction over the land in Sy. No. 60/9, 60/10, 60/11, 60/14, 10/10 of Hebbugodi village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk. Against the interest of the Trust, they have put up unauthorized construction and endangered the structure of the temple. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 have started to build structures around the temple to run a CBSE School. In the process, accused Nos. 1 and 2 manipulated the Kannada version grant order into English translated copy by inserting "Education" in the grant conditions to obtain language certificate for education from accused No. 8 and accused No. 8 without looking into the original grant and the manipulations by accused Nos. 1 and 2, issued certificate to use the land belonging to the temple Trust to run the school.

It is further averred in the complaint that despite filing of complaint, no action is taken to stop the unauthorized construction. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 have forged sanction plan. The construction is on the area earmarked as Park zone as per Comprehensive Development Plan of Bangalore. Accused Nos. 13 to 18 ought to have reported for withdrawing of the transfer made under the registered deed and restore the original order granting the land in favour of the temple Trust to safeguard the temple. Accused Nos. 13 to 18 have colluded and conspired to ratify their manipulation and trying to build records to modify the grant condition to suit accused Nos. 1 and 2 on receipt of illegal gratification. Accused Nos. 1 to 18 have committed offence under Sections 114 , 119 , 120B , 167 , 218 , 420 , 464 , 465 , 468 , 470 and 471 of IPC and Sections 9 , 13(1)(b)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for forging the public documents and receiving illegal gratification. Accused Nos. 8 to 18 have joined hands in creating forged and false documents as genuine.

Sri. Chidanandayya, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, being the Special Deputy Commissioner for the Bangalore Urban District at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was burdened with various responsibilities while discharging his statutory duty. The Adichunchanagiri Shikshana Trust desired to seek affiliation from the Central Board of Secondary Education in the name of B.G.S. National Public School for running an educational institution. The Government granted No Objection to the B.G.S. National Public School for the project. The C.B.S.E. has framed byelaws for consideration of application for grant of affiliation. As per the byelaws, the Land Certificate in prescribed form shall be produced among other documents for consideration of the application to run the School for CBSE Syllabus and said land use certificate shall be obtained from the District Magistrate. In the State of Karnataka, the Special Deputy Commissioner is the Additional District Magistrate for the purpose of issuing certificate of land prescribed by the CBSE. On the application of Adichunchanagiri Shikshana Trust seeking Land Certificate, on the basis of the documents produced, the office of the Special Deputy Commissioner filled up the land use certificate for the purpose of issuing the certificate and the petitioner signed the said certificate on the basis of the information furnished by the Trust in the office. He had taken all precaution to issue certificate of land. The officials thoroughly examined the documents produced by the applicant Trust and filled up the certificate. It is only thereafter the petitioner signed the certificate. After 4 1/2 years of issuance of land use certificate, the second respondent has filed the complaint. It is the civil dispute between two Trusts, which is nothing to do with the office of the Special Deputy Commissioner. The entire complaint allegation does not make out any case as against this petitioner worth investigation by Lokayuktha. Before the learned Special Judge, an argument was addressed by the complainant much beyond the complaint averments. The order of the Special Judge is not on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint. No cognizable offence is made out from a reading of the complaint. The provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act are not attracted to the acts alleged against the petitioner. There is no specific allegation against him of omission and commission; he has not shown any special favour in favour of anybody. The reference order is not in accordance with the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others and is liable to be quashed in accordance with the principles laid down in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, ; Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, ; All Cargo Movers (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain and Another, .

Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1/Lokayuktha submits that, specific allegation is made against the petitioner in the complaint about his involvement by issuing a certificate for use of the land belonging to Sri. Ramalingeshwara Swamy Temple Trust. If it is his case that he had no knowledge of the terms of grant, it is upto the Investigating Officer to consider such contention. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Bihar and Others Vs. Rajmangal Ram, , at the stage of investigation, this Court may not interfere in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. If the final report goes against the petitioner, he can very well challenge such final report. The crux of the matter is, whether the complaint allegation makes out a case for cognizable offence? There is specific averment about involvement of this petitioner with accused Nos. 1 to 7 and 9 to 18 in creating forged and false documents and projecting the same as genuine document and the petition is liable to be rejected.

The complaint was referred for investigation by the Special Judge vide order dated 12.6.2012. Investigation is stayed by the interim order passed by this Court on 13.8.2013. The learned Special Prosecutor for Lokayuktha submits that, the respondent/Lokayuktha Police have given undertaking to this Court that, in all cases, which are pending investigation for more than one year, final report will be submitted by the last week of April 2016 by concluding investigation.

The complaint against the petitioner is sought to be quashed for non-disclosure of a cognizable offence in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lai''s case (supra) and Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P., . Further, non-application of mind of the learned Special Judge while ordering for investigation is also urged as one of the grounds (reliance is placed on the judgments of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Priyanka Srivastava'' case).

Third ground of attack is, the role of the petitioner being very limited, that is only to the extent of issuing a Land Use Certificate on the basis of the note prepared by the subordinate officials without verifying the original grant order will not amount to an offence under either any of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or Prevention of Corruption Act. There is no documentary material annexed to the complaint to establish the allegation that connived with the other accused to commit the offence (Reliance is placed on Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao, ; C.K. Jaffer Sharief Vs. State (Through CBI), .

It is not as if there is no allegation at all against this petitioner in the alleged offences. The specific allegation in the complaint is that as the Special Deputy Commissioner, he joined his hands with accused Nos. 1 to 7 and 9 to 18 in creating a forged and false document as genuine. The translated copy of the original grant order is manipulated. That is what the offence now sought to be taken cognizance in the complaint.

In the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. and Others Vs. Tapan Kr. Singh, and Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State NCT of Delhi and Others, , the FIR need not disclose all facts and details relating to offence reported. A mere suspicion about commission of the offence in the mind of a Police Officer, who is empowered to investigate, is sufficient. In the matter of Yunus Zia Vs. State of Karnataka and Others , the action taken on a Press report by the Investigating Officer was appreciated by the Apex Court.

The order of the learned Magistrate discloses that he has perused the complaint, gave audience and was convinced that the matter requires investigation. It cannot be inferred that the order of referring the matter for investigation is the result of non-application of mind. The petitioner has his explanation for issuing the Land Use Certificate without verifying the original that relying on the note submitted by his Staff, he has affixed his signature, but it is the propriety of the Investigating Officer to examine said explanation also as to whether or not there was any material against him for conspiring and conniving with the co-accused in issuing the Land Use Certificate.

In the light of the undertaking given by the Lokayuktha Police and also in the backdrop of the above observation, I am of the considered opinion that, there is no valid material to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere in the investigation.

The petition is dismissed.

In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A. No. 2/2015 filed for production of the additional documents stands disposed of.