Authority: High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru

Order Date: 19 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: M.S. Reddy (aged ~62), Vice‑President (Finance) & Company Secretary of M/s Le Meridian, Bangalore, owned by M/s Mac Charles (I) Ltd.; filed Criminal Petition No.2208/2019 and Criminal Petition No.7959/2018 under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
  • Respondents: 1) State of Karnataka represented by Police Inspector High Grounds and State Public Prosecutor; 2) Mr. Seetharam, Assistant Revenue Officer, BBMP, Vasantnagar Sub‑Division, Bangalore.
  • Underlying criminal matter: FIR dated 01‑10‑2018, Complaint and Charge Sheet dated 13‑12‑2018 in Crime No.138/2018, registered by High Grounds Police Station, filed before the 8th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (C.C.No.32777/2018) for alleged offence under Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981 (KOPD Act).
  • Background: Demand notice for hoarding taxes of Rs.86,800 issued on 12‑01‑2015; second notice of Rs.7,13,435.52 issued on 19‑08‑2016 for illuminated hoarding. Interim stay granted by this Court on 20‑12‑2016, subject to 50% deposit. Despite stay, authorities issued further notices and on 13‑08‑2018 and 15‑08‑2018 published notices in Kannada and English newspapers demanding removal of the hoarding by 30‑08‑2018. Non‑compliance led to the complaint (01‑10‑2018) and subsequent FIR.
  • Petitioners argued: (a) the hoarding was erected on private property belonging to the petitioner; (b) criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of process as the civil dispute was already before this Court; (c) Section 3 of the KOPD Act does not apply because the advertisement was on private premises and falls within the proviso; (d) under Section 6 of the KOPD Act, the company should be the accused, not the individual employee; (e) the mahazar was drawn on 29‑09‑2018, prior to FIR registration, indicating procedural irregularities.
  • Respondents contended that the hoarding was unauthorised, that notice and publication were given, and that the petitioner failed to remove it, thereby attracting Section 3 of the KOPD Act. They argued that the applicability of Section 3(ii) and Section 6 are matters for trial.
  • The Court examined the statutory provisions: Section 3 imposes penalty for unauthorised advertisement in any place open to public view, with specific exemptions; Section 6 makes a company the primary accused and deems responsible officers guilty unless they prove lack of knowledge or due diligence.
  • The Court also relied on several Supreme Court judgments (Links Advertisers, Novaa Ads, P. Narayana Bhat) establishing that hoardings, whether on private or public land, require licensing and may be regulated if they affect public view or traffic.

Final Outcome

  • The Court allowed both Criminal Petition No.2208/2019 and Criminal Petition No.7959/2018.
  • All criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.32777/2018—including the charge sheet dated 13‑12‑2018, the complaint, and the FIR dated 01‑10‑2018—were quashed in view of Section 6 of the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act.

Topics: Karnataka Open Places Act; Criminal Procedure; Hoarding Regulation