Karnataka High Court quashes case against Le Meridien over unauthorised hoarding on its premises

The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Bengaluru’s five-star hotel Le Meridien and its Vice President (Finance) and Company Secretary MS Reddy in a case alleging unauthorised erection of a hoarding on hotel premises [M S Reddy and others v. State of Karnataka]..Justice HP Sandesh on September 19 allowed two petitions filed by the hotel and Reddy and quashed the case registered against them under Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act.The Court said that failure to arraign the hotel's owner M/s. Mac Charles, as an accused rendered continuation of the prosecution unsustainable."It is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or otherwise, it amounts to abuse of process, in view of Section 6 of KOPD Act and the said Section contemplates that company ought to have been arraigned as accused and it requires interference," the Court said..The case arose from a first information report (FIR) registered by the High Grounds Police in October 2018 alleging violation of Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981 in connection with an unauthorised hoarding displayed at the Le Meridien premises..Considering the relevant law, the Court observed that hoardings erected on private places are also required to be licensed and regulated, as they generally are visible on public roads.The Court noted that the hoarding was situated on the hotel's private property but that this fact, by itself, would not take the hoarding outside the regulatory framework of the KOPD Act.The petitioners contended that after the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) issued demand notices towards hoarding and billboard taxes, the High Court passed an interim order in their favour subject to payment of 50 percent of the demanded amount.The High Court, however, held that the interim order concerning the demand notices did not bar criminal prosecution.The Court said that the interim order related to the demand notices, whereas the criminal proceedings were initiated subsequently after the authorities had provided an opportunity to remove the hoarding.However, since the Court found that company was not accused in the case, it held that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law..Advocate B S Satyanand appeared for the petitioners. HCGP Divakar Maddur and Advocate Aravind M. Neglur appeared for the respondents..[Read Judgment]