S. SRIDHAR Vs. R. SRINIVASA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against two Officers alleging offences under Sections 167, 197 and 218 read with 34 of IPC. At the relevant time, they were working as an Engineer Member and the Commissioner of Bangalore Development Authority, respectively, thereby were the competent authority to accord permission for the construction and regulation of the buildings.

(2.) THE quintessence of the complaint allegation was, the complainant purchased 3 residential flats at Phase I of 'O' Block Platinum City No. 2, HMT Main Road, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore -560 022. The builder since did not procure Occupancy Certificate and did not provide necessary clearances from the statutory authorities, he had to approach the Consumer Forum for redressal. His complaint was allowed by the Forum. In pursuance of the same, he filed an Execution Petition before the Forum. It is at this stage, the builder approached the accused for favour, they obliged and issued Partial Occupancy Certificate. The first accused has signed the Partial Occupancy Certificate and the second accused has asserted the same. In the process of obtaining Partial Occupancy Certificate, the accused have made illegal gain of over Rs. 50 lakhs. Due to the above action of the petitioners, the complainant suffered a loss of more than Rs. 75 lakhs. He filed a complaint before the Lokayuktha against the accused during February 2011. On coming to know about his complaint, the accused withdrew the Partial Occupancy Certificate. His contentions are upheld by Lokayuktha.

(3.) SRI . S.V. Bhat, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the order of the Sessions Court submits, the revision petition was dismissed by the Fast Track Court on the ground that complainant had already sold the building, but it was an erroneous inference since he had not approached the Court claiming damages. He has been highlighting the illegal acts committed by the accused persons, i.e., both issuance and recalling of the Partial Occupancy Certificate which is prima facie vitiated and illegal. It is the established legal proposition that anybody can set the criminal law in motion and the question of locus standi does not arise though he resold the flats to the builder. In view of withdrawal of the Partial Occupancy Certificate, he was compelled to sell away the flats to the builder otherwise he could have sold the flats in the open market and would have derived fair sale price. The accused persons have issued Partial Occupancy Certificate only to help the builder from escaping NBW issued against the builder in the execution proceeding before the Forum. The learned Sessions Judge has made another erroneous observation that there is no cause of action for the complaint. But the averments made in the complaint makes out that the Partial Occupancy Certificate was issued in violation of the mandatory sanction from the Department of Fire and Safety and CEIG, hence, issuance of Partial Occupancy Certificate is punishable under the provisions of Sections 167, 197 and 218 of I.P.C. Because of the illegal acts of the accused/respondents, not only he lost his case before the Consumer Forum but also suffered huge loss.