Prosecution initiated by BMTF without police powers is unauthorized and liable to be quashed.

Following a complaint alleging that office-bearers of the BDA Employees Welfare Association had improperly sold sites, the BMTF Police registered Crime No. 15/2017.

The petitioners, arraigned as accused Nos. 3 and 4, had purchased a site from the Association for ₹54,86,900.

They later cancelled the sale and rectification deeds, released the site to the Association, and received the sale consideration back.

The charge sheet alleged offences under Sections 33, 33(A) and 72 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, and Sections 120B, 409, 465, 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC.

The petitioners sought to quash the charge sheet and proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

1. Whether prosecution initiated following an investigation by the BMTF could proceed where the BMTF lacked authority to exercise general police powers in respect of the alleged offences

2. Whether the petitioners’ cancellation of the deeds and repayment of the consideration, together with the alleged lack of authority to initiate the prosecution, warranted quashing the charge sheet

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent abuse of process and miscarriage of justice.

It relied on Sri Srinath Mangalore v. State of Karnataka, Urban Development Department and Others, ILR 2018 Kar 4815, for the proposition that the BMTF is not a general police station and lacks general police powers to take cognizance of IPC offences; the judgment also noted that this position had been upheld by the Supreme Court.

The prosecution had invoked Sections 33, 33(A) and 72 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, and Sections 120B, 409, 465, 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC.

The Court treated the BMTF’s lack of authority as a foundational defect: the investigation and resulting prosecution had been initiated by an entity that, under the precedent relied upon, was not a police station with general police powers to investigate and prosecute the alleged offences.

The Court further noted that the petitioners had cancelled the deeds, returned the site to the Association and received the entire consideration back.

In those circumstances, it concluded that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of process.