Karnataka HC Keeps Criminal-Action Direction Against BPCL Dealer Over Forged Municipal Acknowledgment, While Sparing BPCL At ₹5 Lakh Cost

In brief

The question

1. Whether the direction to initiate criminal proceedings could be sustained against BPCL when its original requisition bore no acknowledgment of service on the CMC.

The court held

The Court allowed BPCL’s appeal, subject to payment of ₹5,00,000 to the High Court Legal Services Committee, and reserved BPCL’s liberty to recover that amount from the dealer.

It also directed

It quashed the Single Judge’s direction to initiate action against the petitioners, while dismissing the dealer’s appeal.

01Facts

BPCL’s retail outlet at Bidar was operated through its dealer, M/s Sai Petroleum.

p. 4

After the City Municipal Council (CMC) demolished part of the outlet, BPCL and the dealer filed separate writ petitions challenging the CMC’s order.

pp. 4–7

The Single Judge dismissed both petitions, finding that the petitioners had produced a fabricated document purporting to show that a building-permission requisition had been received by the CMC, and directed the Additional Registrar General to initiate proceedings under specified provisions of the IPC and CrPC.

pp. 4–7, 10–15

In the connected appeals, the Division Bench compared BPCL’s original requisition, which bore no acknowledgment, with the copy produced by Sai Petroleum, which did.

pp. 15–17

It concluded that the dealer had forged the acknowledgment, but that BPCL had not done so.

pp. 15–17

02Issues

i.1. Whether the direction to initiate criminal proceedings could be sustained against BPCL when its original requisition bore no acknowledgment of service on the CMC.

pp. 8–9, 15–17

ii.2. Whether the dealer’s production of a copy bearing an acknowledgment, absent from BPCL’s original, justified dismissal of the dealer’s appeal and the finding that the document was forged.

pp. 15–17

03Law Applied

The Single Judge had directed proceedings under Sections 177, 181, 193, 196, 199, 200 and 209 of the IPC, read with Sections 195 and 340 of the CrPC, concerning alleged false statements, fabrication and offences affecting court proceedings.

pp. 7, 14–15

The Division Bench did not set out or apply a broader statutory test or cite precedent; its decision turned on comparing the original requisition with the copy produced by the dealer and determining which party was implicated by that discrepancy.

pp. 15–17

Provisions in the judgment · 10 · Linked ones open on LawLens

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 Section 4

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 177 Section 181 Section 193 Section 196 Section 199 Section 200 Section 209

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 195 Section 340

04Reasoning

The original requisition produced by BPCL did not contain an acknowledgment from the CMC, whereas the dealer’s copy did.

pp. 15–17

The Bench treated that difference, together with the fact that the acknowledged copy came from the dealer’s custody, as establishing that the dealer—not BPCL—had forged the document.

pp. 15–17

It therefore held that the direction to initiate proceedings could not stand against BPCL.

pp. 15–17

The Bench also noted that BPCL had not complained against the dealer after learning of the alleged forgery, and made its relief conditional on BPCL paying costs.

pp. 15–18

05Holding

The Court allowed BPCL’s appeal, subject to payment of ₹5,00,000 to the High Court Legal Services Committee, and reserved BPCL’s liberty to recover that amount from the dealer.

p. 18

It quashed the Single Judge’s direction to initiate action against the petitioners, while dismissing the dealer’s appeal.

p. 18

LawLens.Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF