- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8947 CRL.P No. 2524 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2524 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. S. SRIDHAR S/O. SRI. E.R. SHAMACHAR AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.27, SIRUR PARK ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU - 560 020 NOT CLAIMED SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT 2. SRI. C. GOPINATH NAIR, S/O M K NAMBIAR, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.70, AICOBANAGARA, 17TH MAIN 4TH CROSS, BTM 1ST STAGE BENGALURU - 560 068 NOT CLAIMED SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAGENDRA NAIK R., ADVOCATE) AND: BANK OFFICERS CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED A CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959 REGISTRATION NO. JRB/CRD/REGN 27/4904/82-83, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT GF-006 "AACHARYA SANKEERNA" AICOBOONAGAR, 9TH MAIN, II CROSS, BTM LAYOUT II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 076, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8947 CRL.P No. 2524 of 2021 P. KISHOR KUMAR, BANK OFFICERS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS ACHARYASANKEERNA, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 076 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H. MUJTABA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.5659/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ACMM, BANGALORE. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 in CC.No.5659/2020 pending on the learned VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in PCR.No.2069/2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 405, 406, 409, 468, 471, 381, 420, 423, 120B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 2. Heard Sri. Nagendra Naik. R, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. H. Mytaba, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8947 CRL.P No. 2524 of 2021 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by 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 4. It is the specific contention of the respondent - complainant that petitioner No.1 - accused No.1 was the chairman of the respondent - Society which is a Housing Society constituted to acquire the land, form the sites and allot the same to its members. Petitioner No.1 - accused No.1 was the chairman of the society between 25.08.1991 to 31.03.2015, petitioner No.2 - accused No.2 was the vice- chairman between 01.04.2015 to 28.02.2020. It is the contention of the respondent that a site was allotted in favour of accused No.1 on 17.03.1984 which was measuring 3600 Sq.ft. The allotment letter was also issued on 05.12.1991 in respect of the same. But the sale deed was got execute by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8947 CRL.P No. 2524 of 2021 accused No.1 on 19.01.2004 in respect of the land measuring 4540 Sq.ft. Thereafter, the petitioner got approved the plan from BDA and constructed the house. In the meantime, BMRCL is said to have acquired the land to an extent of 1162 Sq.ft, and for the purpose of awarding compensation it has sought for No objection Certificate, which was issued by accused No.2 who was the vice-chairman of the Society. Pursuant to issuance of NOC the compensation of Rs.2.82 crores was paid to accused No.1. It is thereafter, respondent - Society issued show cause notice, calling upon petitioner No.1 to refund the amount and raised the dispute before the Register of Co-operative Societies. The dispute was allowed and petitioner No.1 was directed to refund the amount. It is stated that the petitioner has challenged the said proceedings before this Court by filing the writ petition, which is pending consideration. 5. In the meantime, the respondent - Society has filed the private complaint in PCR.No.2069/2019 before the Trial Court against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the above said offences. On the basis of the complaint, the Trial Court took cognizance of the offence, registered the criminal case, and summoned the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8947 CRL.P No. 2524 of 2021 petitioners. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 6. On perusal of the materials on record and after hearing rival contention of the parties, it is stated that a site measuring 3600 Sq.ft was allotted in favour of accused No.1 during March, 1984 when he was only the member and not holding any position in the Society. But the allotment letter came to be issued on 05.12.1991 in respect of a site measuring 3600 Sq.ft, during which accused No.1 was chairman of respondent - Society. He held that position till 31.03.2015. Thereafter, from 01.04.2015 petitioner No.2 assumed the position as vice-chairman of respondent - Society and he held it till 28.02.2020. Even though, the site was allotted in favour of petitioner No.1 measuring 3600 Sq.ft, as per the allotment letter dated 05.12.1991 when petitioner No.1 was the chairman of the Society, a registered sale deed got executed in his favour on 19.01.2004 in respect of site measuring 4540 Sq.ft. Even according to learned counsel for the petitioners, there was no resolution for selling the site measuring 4540 Sq.ft in favour of petitioner No.1, who was admittedly the chairperson of the Society. Petitioner No.2 was the vice chairman who issued the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8947 CRL.P No. 2524 of 2021 NOC for releasing the compensation in favour of accused No.1, i.e., an amount of Rs.2.82 crores. 7. Regarding refund of the said amount a separate proceeding is pending. But the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the act of the petitioners would not amount to cheating cannot be accepted at this stage. Prima facie the petitioners have misused their authority as chairman and vice-chairman while acting on behalf of the respondent - Society and made some dubious transactions. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Negative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE PNV CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5