IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Criminal breach of trust and cheating – Cognizance of offences – Same person cannot be simultaneously charged for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC with regard to one particular transaction.
(2) There is no bar to simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings – If element of criminality is there, civil case can co-exist with criminal case on same facts.
(3) In absence of element of criminality, if both civil and criminal cases are allowed to continue, it will definitely amount to abuse of process of Court.

JUDGMENT :

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.

Leave granted

2. I.A. Nos.141246/2024 and 215072/2024 are allowed; exemptions from filing Official Translation(s) are granted. I.A. No.215071 of 2024 is closed.

3. The respondent no. 2/complainant (Keerthiraj Shetty) had filed Private Complaint Report No.12357/2022 dated 20.07.2022 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PCR’), under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CrPC’) before the learned IIIrd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ACMM’). The PCR was referred to the Sanjay Nagar Police Station for investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC vide Order dated 21.07.2023. After the referral order, First Information Report bearing Crime No.260/2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR’) came to be registered on 05.10.2023 against the four appellants and the other accused¹[Reference to the accused in this judgment is as per their position in the FIR] for offences punishable under Sections 405, 406, 415, 417, 418, 420, 504, 506, 384 and 120B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’).

4. The present appeal impugns the Final Judgment and Order dated 03.06.2024 in Criminal Petition No.12452 of 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’) passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’), whereby the appellants’ petition seeking quashing of the FIR was dismissed.

FACTUAL SETTING:

5. The case has a chequered history and it would be necessary to advert, in some detail, to the relevant factual backdrop amidst which the FIR came to be lodged, as can be culled out from the Impugned Judgment and pleadings. The complainant has alleged that the accused no.1-K. V. Jayalakshmamma (in some cases/records, this is spelt as ‘Jayalakshmamma’ but reference is to the one and same person) along with K. V. Srinivasa Murthy and K. V. Prabhakar (these three have passed away – the accused appellants are their family members) were joint owners of the properties in Sy. No.20 measuring 3 acres 33 guntas and in Sy. No.21 to an extent of 2 acres 32 guntas in Bhoopasandra Village, Bangalore North Taluk (these properties are hereinafter collectively referred to as the ‘subject property’). One D. Muniswamy executed Sale Deed dated 19.10.1967 in respect of the said land of Sy. No.20 to one Lakshminarasimhaiah, who purchased the same in trust for K. V. Shrinivas Murthy and K. V. Prabhakar. Later, K. V. Shrinivas Murthy and K. V. Prabhakar filed a suit viz. O. S. No.907/1975 for declaration and permanent injunction against the said Lakshminarasimhaiah. The said suit came to be decreed on 28.11.1975/19.02.1976. In respect of Sy. No.21 land, occupancy rights for 3 acres in Bhoopasandra Village was conferred vide Order dated 22.06.1994 in proceedings being LRF-924, 941 of 1974-1975 by the Land Tribunal. Accordingly, Form No.10 was issued in favour of K. V. Jayalakshmamma and K. V. Shrinivas Murthy.

6. Meanwhile, the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BDA’) came into the picture. The BDA was set up by an Act of the Karnataka State Legislature on 06.01.1976. It sought to acquire the subject property and Preliminary Notification dated 19.01.1978 and Final Notification dated 28.12.1982 was issued. Pursuant to the acquisition, the lands in the subject property were allotted to other persons. In 1988, there was a dispute as to the ownership of the subject property between Syed Bashid and others on one side and K. V. Jayalakshmamma along with K. V. Srinivasa Murthy and K. V. Prabhakar on the other side. The subject property was in the possession of Syed Bashid. Later, the Government de- notified the subject property by Notification dated 27.08.1992. Since the BDA had already allotted the sites, the allottees filed Writ Petitions No.37719-25/1992, 3216-17/1993, 11001/1993, 23205/1993, 32221/1993, 15718/1