- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9645 CRL.P No. 4795 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4795 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SMT. SHANKARAMMA W/O LATE C. NAGABHUSHAN AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS PRESENTLY R/AT ATTIBELE VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 107. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SURYANAGAR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SRI. N. SOMASHEKAR REDDY S/O NARAYANAREDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.9/331 "LAVANYA NILAYA" MUNIVENKATAPPA LAYOUT CHANDAPURA ROAD ANEKAL TOWN BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9645 CRL.P No. 4795 of 2024 THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE (HEBBAGODI POLICE THEN) SURYANAGAR POLICE STATION IN C.C.NO.1425/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ANEKAL, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420 OF IPC, AND ORDER DATED 14.06.2013 PASSED IN C.C.NO.1425/2017 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ANEKAL, TAKING COGNIZANCE AND DIRECTING TO REGISTER THE CRIMINAL CASE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner challenges the registration of the FIR for offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. The 2nd respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., alleging that he entered into a joint development agreement with the petitioner, who is the owner of the subject land, and that under the agreement he received Rs.95,000 as goodwill. It is further alleged that the petitioner, fully aware of her obligations under the agreement, entered into a joint development agreement with another builder on 09.07.2010 without complying with the terms and conditions of the agreement with the 2nd respondent. 2. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the Police for investigation. After conducting an investigation, the Police submitted the charge sheet for - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9645 CRL.P No. 4795 of 2024 the aforesaid offence, and the learned Magistrate, based on the charge sheet material, took cognizance of the offence. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the joint development agreement was entered into between the parties on 15.05.2007, and that, as per its terms, the complainant was required to complete the project within 12 months from the date of obtaining a sanction plan from the competent authority. However, the 2nd respondent failed to perform his part of the contract, which compelled the petitioner to enter into a joint development agreement with a third party. He further submitted that, in the absence of any allegation or material evidence that the petitioner induced the 2nd respondent to enter into the agreement with an intention to deceive, the cognizance of the offence is inadmissible because the essential elements constituting the said offence are conspicuously absent. 4. The learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the charge sheet material discloses the commission of the alleged offence by the petitioner and that the veracity of the allegations can be considered at trial, not at this stage, and therefore sought the dismissal of the petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9645 CRL.P No. 4795 of 2024 5. The respondent No. 2, although served with notice, did not appear in person or through counsel; accordingly, he is being dealt with ex parte. 6. The arguments of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned HCGP were duly considered. 7. A perusal of the joint development agreement annexed to the petition indicates that the agreement was entered into on 15.05.2007, and as per its terms, the respondent No. 2 the de facto complainant was required to complete the project within 12 months from the date of obtaining the sanction from the competent authority. There is no material in the charge sheet to substantiate that the respondent took any steps to obtain the necessary sanction, nor was any notice issued to the petitioner to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement. Moreover, the petitioner entered into a fresh joint development agreement with another builder on 09.07.2010. 8. There is no allegation in the private complaint, nor is there any material to substantiate that the petitioner induced respondent No.2 to enter into the agreement with the intention to commit an offence under Section 420 of the IPC. In such circumstances, the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9645 CRL.P No. 4795 of 2024 continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The criminal petition is allowed ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.1425/2017 on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Anekal, insofar it relates to the petitioner-accused herein stands quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 107