- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8226 CRL.P No. 8109 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8109 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. MR. GANDHI .R. AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS S/O. LATE R. CHINNAPPA CHETTY, 2. MRS. KAMALA GANDHI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS W/O. R. GANDHI 3. MR. R. VINOD GANDHI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O. R. GANDHI 4. MRS. SHILPA GANDHI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS W/O. VIVEK SUNDARAM PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.42, BARATHIDASAN STREET BARATHI NAGAR, SIPCOT, RANIPET, VELLORE DISTRICT - 632 403 5. MR. SANTHOSH GANDHI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O. R. GANDHI, RESIDING AT NO.39, BARATHIDASAN STREET, BARATHI NAGAR, SIPCOT, RANIPET, VELLORE DISTRICT - 632 403 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S. MAHESH, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8226 CRL.P No. 8109 of 2018 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HENNUR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001 2. MR. UMAPATHY .R. AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O. N. RAMPRASAD, RESIDING AT NO.327, 4TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK, H.B.R. LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 043 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKATSATHYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. R. SUBRAMANYAM, ADVOCATE FOR R2(AB)) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN P.C.R.NO.53324/2018 AND THE CONSEQUENT REGISTRATION OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.190/2018 BY THE HENNUR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE DISTRICT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED XI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAGISTRATE AT BANGALORE. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.190/2018 of Hennur Police Station arising out of PCR No.53324/2018 on the file of the learned XI Additional Chief - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8226 CRL.P No. 8109 of 2018 Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 as complainant filed PCR No.53324/2018 before the Trial Court against the petitioners - accused Nos. 1 to 5 alleging commission of the offence punishable under Sections 506 and 420 of IPC. It is the contention of the complainant before the Trial Court that he is the owner of the immovable property bearing Sy.Nos.37/2 B and 38/2 B2 (Old Sy.Nos.37 and 38/2), an industrial land as per the conversion order dated 27.04.1977. The petitioners agreed to purchase the said property and entered into an agreement for sale dated 18.05.2010, agreeing to purchase an area measuring 20,820 sq.ft. Later, the petitioners entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the complainant and his brothers on 22.06.2010, where it is clearly stated that in view of the road widening and consequent acquisition of the property by BBMP, the accused were intending to purchase the remaining extent of 18,136 sq.ft. As per the terms of MOU, as the compensation - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8226 CRL.P No. 8109 of 2018 payable for the land reserved for road widening by BBMP, the accused have agreed to retain the Transferable Development Right (TDR) and they also agreed to pay the market value of TDR to the complainant and his brothers. Later, the complainant and his brothers executed the absolute sale deed in favour of the accused on 04.10.2010 based on the goodwill and the trust. After execution of the said sale deed, the accused have received the compensation from BDA. But, subsequently they have cheated the complainant and his brothers by not complying with the terms of MOU. They have not paid the compensation as agreed. They have criminally intimidated the complainant and his brothers and thereby, committed the offence. Accordingly, the complainant requested the Trial Court to take cognizance of the offences. 3. The Trial Court referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC and accordingly, Hennur police registered Crime No.190/2018 for the above said offences. In the meantime, the petitioners have approached this Court, seeking to quash to criminal proceedings initiated against them. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8226 CRL.P No. 8109 of 2018 4. Heard Sri S Mahesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Venkatsathyanarayan, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is not ready to address his arguments inspite of giving sufficient opportunities. Hence, his argument is taken as nil. Perused the materials on records. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, the private complaint is filed in clear abuse of process of law. The averments made in the private complaint disclose that it is purely of civil nature, given the color of criminal offence. Admittedly, an agreement for sale was executed where the petitioners agreed to purchase the land measuring 20,820 sq.ft out of total extent of 32,175.34 sq.ft. A sale deed was executed on 21.05.2010 in respect of 20,820 sq.ft. But later, when a portion of the land was reserved for widening the road by BBMP by acquiring the same, a MOU was entered into on 22.06.2010. Subsequently, another sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioners on 04.10.2010 by the complainant and his brothers wherein, the land measuring 10,781.34 sq. ft was sold. The complainant and his brothers retained only 574 sq. ft. of land. After all these developments during 2018, i.e., after lapse of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8226 CRL.P No. 8109 of 2018 about 8 years, a criminal complaint was filed, only because the price of the land has shoot up considerably. The complainant had also filed the suit in O.S.No.6028 of 2018 before the Trial Court seeking grant of permanent injunction. But the suit was not prosecuted and the same came to be dismissed for default. 6. Learned counsel contended that there is inordinate delay of more than 8 years in filing the complaint. The dispute is purely of civil nature. The complainant is trying to enforce the terms of MOU and only to pressurize the petitioners, criminal complaint is filed. Moreover, the civil suit filed by the complainant was not prosecuted. The direction issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs State of U.P.1 is not followed as no affidavit whatsoever is filed. When the civil dispute between the parties to seek enforcement of terms of MOU was converted to give the colour of commission of criminal offence, the petitioners are entitled for the relief and therefore, he prays for allowing the petition. 7. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 while conceding, prima facie the dispute is 1 2015(6) SCC 287 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8226 CRL.P No. 8109 of 2018 civil in nature and criminal complaint is filed, seeks passing of appropriate orders. 8. 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 ‘Affirmative’ for the following: R E A S O N S 9. The complainant has filed the Private Complaint in PCR No.53324/2018 before the Trial Court against the accused alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 420 of IPC. The first contention taken by the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 5 is that the direction issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) was not followed. It is stated that no affidavit whatsoever was filed for highlighting compliance of requirement - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8226 CRL.P No. 8109 of 2018 of Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C. No materials are placed before the Court to contend that there is compliance of such directions. 10. Second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is an inordinate delay of more than 8 years in filing the complaint. The complainant referred to an agreement for sale and the subsequent sale deed entered into between the complainant and the accused, which are admittedly of the year 2010. Pursuant to the Agreement to Purchase the land measuring 20,820 sq.ft. a registered Sale Deed was executed on 21.05.2010. Later when the BBMP proposed to widen the road by acquiring some portion of the land, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between the parties on 22.06.2010, and one more sale deed was executed by the complainant in favour of the petitioner on 04.10.2010. It is stated that the complainants and his brothers have retained only 574 Sq.ft. of land. After lapse of about 8 years, during 2018, the complainants and his brothers appear to have filed suit in OS No.6028/2018 before the Trial Court seeking permanent injunction. It is stated that even the said suit came to be dismissed for default i.e., for non-prosecution. In the meantime, private complaint came to be filed in the year - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8226 CRL.P No. 8109 of 2018 2018 alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 420 of IPC. 11. When the admitted documents i.e, the agreement for sale and sale deeds are taken into consideration, no offence of either Sections 506 or 420 of IPC is made out by the complainants. The contention taken by the complainants that petitioners have promised to pay the market value of TDR to the complainants and his brother is not evidenced by any of the materials. It is stated that it is an oral understanding between the parties. Under such circumstances, complainant is required to prove his contention before the Civil Court regarding oral understanding between the parties. Definitely, it will not give rise to filing of criminal complaints alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 420 of IPC. When the contention of the complainant is against the terms of written documents i.e., agreement to sale and sale deed referred to above, I am satisfied that the complainants have filed the criminal complaint based on the alleged oral understanding between the parties, giving it a colour of criminal offence. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the initiation of criminal proceedings is in clear abuse of process of law and the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8226 CRL.P No. 8109 of 2018 same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER ( i ) The petition is allowed. ( ii ) The FIR registered in Crime No.190/2018 of Hennur Police Station arising out of PCR No.53324/2018 on the file of the learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 420 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12