IMPORTANT POINTS
It is not permissible for High Court to record any findings on disputed facts.
Mere filing of a suit or complaint u/s138 of the N.I. Act, 1881 by itself is no ground to quash the proceedings.
Breach of trust with mens rea gives rise to a criminal prosecution as well.

JUDGMENT

R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Leave granted.

2. These criminal appeals are filed by the complainant, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28th April, 2017 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Crl.P Nos. 2383 of 2017, 7976 of 2013 and 7161 of 2016. By the aforesaid order, the High Court has allowed the petitions filed by the respondents-accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quashed the complaint bearing P.C.R. No. 12317 of 2013 filed before the IV ACMM, Bangalore, and complaint bearing P.C.R. No. 14420 of 2015, filed before the VIII ACMM, Bengaluru, as well as the order dated 27th November, 2015 (wrongly mentioned as 27th July, 2015) passed by the VIII ACMM, Bengaluru, in P.C.R.No.14420 of 2015, directing the Sanjaya Nagara Police Station to investigate the matter.

3. The appellant herein has filed complaint on 29th April, 2013 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, which is registered as P.C.R. No. 12317 of 2013 against the accused A1 to A5, namely (1) M/s. Pramila Santhosh Land Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd., (2) D.T. Santhosh (3) D.C. Thamanna (4) Smt. K.G. Pramila and (5) M/s. Sri Sai Developers for the alleged offences under Sections 403, 406, 420, 506(B) of the Indian Penal Code. There is also a susequent complaint by the same complainant on 27th November, 2015 which is registered as P.C.R. No. 14420 of 2015, which is subseqently numbered as CC No. 54 of 2016 (after filing of the chargesheet dated 22nd December, 2015) against the accused therein namely (1) M/s. Pramila Santhosh Land Developers and Builders Pvt Ltd. (2) D.T. Santhosh and (3) Smt. K.G. Pramila for the alleged offences under Sections 417, 418, 420, 422, 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC and for offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

4. The first complaint dated 29th April, 2013 was filed alleging that the respondents-accused made a representation that they are owners and are absolutely seized and possessed of land at Ballur village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk and promised to procure an extent of 70 acres of land and entered into an agreement with the appellant-complainant on 26th September, 2012 and received an amount of Rs. 9 crores (Rupees Nine crores) by way of cheques and demand drafts. It is alleged that the extent and survey nos. of land mentioned in the Schedule appended to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) were to be procured in favour of the complainant. It was further pleaded that there were two cheques issued by the accused as security for the amount of advance paid by the appellant-complainant. It was the case of the complainant that subsequent to agreement dated 26th September, 2012, the respondents-accused having failed to perform the contract in terms of agreement, have entered into another MOU on 8th November, 2012, representing that they are in possession of 70 acres of agricultural land and 30 acres of converted land and they promised to transfer such land in favour of the appellant. To the MOU dated 8th November, 2012 M/s. Sri Sai Developers was added as a party. As per the complaint, there is also a Schedule indicating the survey nos. and extent of lands to the second MOU. In the complaint filed on 29th April, 2013 it was alleged that though the respondents have already sold the land covered by Survey Nos. 115 and 117 to M/s. Sri Sai Developers on 7th June, 2012, with a dishonest intention respondents have played fraud and cheated the appellant by receiving huge sum of Rs. 9 Crores (Rupees Nine crores), by including the lands covered by Survey Nos. 115 and 117 also. Further alleging that when the demand was made to comply with the terms of the contract, the respondents have threatened the complainant, as such the respondents are liable to be punished for offences under Sections 403, 406, 420, 506(B) of IPC.

5. Further alleging that after filing of the first criminal complaint, the respondents have threatened and pressurised the appellant and the second complaint was filed. In the