- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7828 CRL.P No. 4514 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4514 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. VIMALA P.N. AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, W/O. LATE B.T. VENKATESH REDDY, R/AT. NO.125/1/142, 9TH CROSS, OPP CITY MEDICALS, BELLANDUR, BENGALURU - 560 103 2. MR. V. LOKESH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O. LATE B.T. VENKATESH REDDY, R/AT. NO.125/1, 9TH CROSS, OPP. CITY MEDICALS, BELLANDUR, BENGALURU - 560 103 3. MR. V. GOPINATH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O. LATE B.T. VENKATESH REDDY, R/AT. NO.89/5, GOPINILAYA, 1ST CROSS, BEHIND KARNATAKA BANK, BELLANDUR, BENGALURU - 560 103 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MUNISWAMY GOWDA S.G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA HALASUR POLICE STATION, HALASUR, BANGALORE - 560 008 REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001 2. RAM PRASAD AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7828 CRL.P No. 4514 of 2024 S/O. LATE T.A. KEMPEGOWDA, CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, KALYANI TECH PARK PVT. LTD., NO.165/2, KRISHNARAJU LAYOUT, DORAISANIPALYA, BANGALORE - 560 076 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. P.K. SHRIKARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.5752/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. CMM BENGALURU REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 406, 420, 120B R/W 34 OF IPC, OF HALASUR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners being accused Nos.2 to 4 in Crime No.122 of 2022 registered by Halasur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 120-B and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC pending in C.C.No.5752/2024 on the file of learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 filed the first information against accused Nos.1 to 6 alleging - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7828 CRL.P No. 4514 of 2024 commission of the offences as stated above. It is the contention of respondent No.2 that the petitioners who have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (for short, 'MOU') dated 16.07.2020 agreed to develop the property. After receiving part consideration amount, they entered into Confirmation Deed dated 17.08.2021 with one Muni Reddy only with an intention to defraud respondent No.2 and to deny his right under the MOU. On the basis of the first information, the FIR in Crime No.122/2022 was registered and investigation was undertaken. The charge sheet came to be filed for the aforesaid offences. The petitioners being accused Nos.2 to 4 are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 3. Heard Sri Muniswamy Gowda, S.G., learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Venkat Sathyanarayan, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri P.K.Shrikara, learned counsel for Ms.Aditi Gurjer, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7828 CRL.P No. 4514 of 2024 4. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following: REASONS 5. As per the first information and as well as the charge sheet, it is elaborately stated that the accused had entered into MOU on 16.07.2020, whereunder respondent No.2 being the developer agreed to develop 28 guntas of land, and paid part consideration amount as agreed. The petitioners being the owners agreed to give away the property for developing. However, without honoring the terms of MOU, the petitioners with an intention to cheat and defraud respondent No.2, entered into Confirmation Deed dated 17.08.2021 with one Muni Reddy and thereby misled respondent No.2. Therefore, it is contended that the accused have committed the offences as stated above. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7828 CRL.P No. 4514 of 2024 6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Confirmation Deed which is disputed by respondent No.2 was got executed from the petitioners in favour of Muni Reddy by misleading them and therefore, the suit O.S.No.25347/2024 was filed by them seeking cancellation of the Confirmation Deed against Muni Reddy and the said suit is still pending consideration. 7. The materials on record disclose that there are several litigations between the parties and said Muni Reddy, is party to the Confirmation Deed. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that suit O.S.No.5861/2015 was filed by Muni Reddy seeking specific performance of the agreement in respect of larger extent of 4 acres 11 guntas of land. The said suit came to be compromised between the parties. However, alleging that the compromise entered into was with a dead person, Misc.No.318/2018 came to be filed seeking to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.5861/2015. The Trial Court on going through the materials on record, held that the compromise decree is not a valid decree and allowed Misc.No.318/2018 by setting aside the compromise decree entered in O.S.No.5861/2015 and also ordered for cancellation - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7828 CRL.P No. 4514 of 2024 of the sale deed dated 20.02.2017. Being aggrieved by the same, Muni Reddy had preferred W.P.No.878/2020 and the same is pending consideration. After all these developments, the disputed document i.e. Confirmation Deed dated 17.08.2021 is said to have been executed by the petitioners in favour of Muni Reddy in respect of entire extent of 4 acres 11 guntas of land. Therefore, it is the contention of respondent No.2 that the petitioners deliberately with an intention to cheat and to deny his right over the property as a developer, entered into the Confirmation Deed and thereby committed the above mentioned offences. 8. The materials on record disclose that even though the Confirmation Deed is dated 17.08.2021, the petitioners have filed the suit O.S.No.25347/2024 seeking cancellation of the Confirmation Deed in the year 2024 i.e. after lapse of about 3 years from the date of Confirmation Deed, which is evidently after filing of the criminal complaint by respondent No.2. 9. Now it is the contention of the petitioners that respondent No.2 has not alleged that there was dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners to cheat or defraud - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7828 CRL.P No. 4514 of 2024 respondent No.2 at the time of entering into MOU on 16.07.2020 and therefore, no offence under Sections 406 or 420 IPC is made out. He placed reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of Jharkhand High Court in Sanjiv Nandan Sahai and Another vs. State of Jharkhand and Another1, where the owner of the land entered into an agreement for sale with the Company and later he entered into another agreement of sale with a third party agreeing to sell the property for a higher price. A criminal complaint came to be filed against the owner of the property alleging cheating. When a petition was filed for quashing the criminal proceedings before the High Court, it is held that the owner of the property who is arrayed as accused had no intention whatsoever to cheat the complainant when the agreement for sale was entered into between the two. Therefore, it is held that the ingredients of either Sections 406 or 420 IPC could not be attributed. 10. Placing reliance on this decision, it is contended that, unless the dishonest intention and the mens rea required to constitute the offence was present at the inception i.e. at the time of entering into MOU, no offence is made out against the 1 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 2937 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7828 CRL.P No. 4514 of 2024 petitioners. But here in the present case, admittedly the MOU was entered into where-under respondent No.2 has agreed to buy the property. Pursuant to the same, he paid portion of the consideration amount. Later, the petitioners have entered into Confirmation Deed with Muni Reddy in respect of the larger extent of land measuring 04 acres 11 guntas on 17.08.2021. If the Confirmation Deed is to be accepted, definitely it is against the decree of the Civil Court passed in Misc.No.318/2018, and right of respondent No.2 as crystallized under MOU is invaded. Under such circumstances, prima-facie it is to be held that the petitioners were having an intention to cheat respondent No.2 at the time of entering into Confirmation Deed with Muni Reddy and to wriggle out of the situation they filed suit O.S.No.25347/2024 seeking cancellation of Confirmation Deed after about 3 years. When there are prima-facie materials to constitute the offence as alleged, this Court is not inclined to quash the criminal proceedings. Hence I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in this petition. Hence, I answer the above point in the ‘negative’ and proceed to pass the following: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7828 CRL.P No. 4514 of 2024 ORDER The Criminal petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16