The main legal point established is that the filing of a fresh complaint was in compliance with previous court orders and not an abuse of process. The court also emphasized the provision for arbitration in the Joint Development Agreement and concluded that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process.

ORDER :

This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 8 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the FIR in Crime No.168/2018 registered by High Grounds Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 418, 420, 465 r/w. Section 34 of IPC.

2. Though this case is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

3. I have heard Sri C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionersaccused Nos.1 to 8 and Sri Hashmath Pasha learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2, so also the learned HCGP for respondent No.1State.

4. The brief facts of the case as averred in the petition are that accused No.1M/s.Mantri Promoters are into the business of acquisition and development of lands. They had entered into agreements to build high raised buildings. It is a partnership firm formed through a partnership deed dated 25.3.2009. They entered into a Joint Development Agreement with Township Promoters for the development of lands at Jakkur and executed a deed on 1.6.2017. Subsequently, five more partners were added to the said firm and thereafter it has been converted into a Private Limited Company under the name and style “Jakkur Promoters Private Limited” and the said Company was incorporated on 23.8.2017. During the year 2009, 2nd respondent approached the first petitioner Company by stating that they have landed property and are desirous of developing it and they intended to do the same jointly with petitioner No.1 Company. After negotiation, they entered into a Joint Development Agreement (‘JDA’ for short) on 30.3.2009. In pursuance of the said JDA, the first petitioner Company by spending huge amounts initiated the development activities on the said land belonging to the second respondent. They also procured required sanction and other permission from the statutory authorities. It is further averred that one of the land owners created certain hurdles and initiated the litigations and as such petitioner No.1 was not able to proceed with the developmental activities. The said facts were within the knowledge of the second respondent. Because of various litigations both on civil and revenue sides there was a delay in development of the property. It is further averred that as per the terms and conditions of JDA petitioner No.1 is entitled to raise loans on such property in so far as its share is concerned, to meet the expenses and with an intention to commence the development activities. Subsequently respondent No.2 started making certain illegal demands with petitioner No.1 and also started harassing, so also caused a notice making certain allegations. Subsequently on 22.9.2017 respondent No.2 has filed a complaint in PCR No.11908/2017. The learned Magistrate without considering the material, referred the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and on the basis of the same, a case was registered. Challenging the same, petitioners approached this Court by filing Criminal Petition No.8203/2017. This Court by the order dated 29.11.2017 quashed the order of reference and subsequent action taken thereon. Being aggrieved by such order respondent No.2 preferred Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5707/2018 before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the said petition also came to be dismissed with the seal of the Supreme Court, with an observation that the complainant is permitted to file a fresh complaint in accordance with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. Subsequently, on 1.12.2018, respondent No.2 submitted the very complaint before the learned Magistrate. The said complaint was referred to High Grounds Police Station and a case has been registered in Crime No.168/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 418, 420, 465 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. Challenging the same, the petitioners accused Nos.1 to 8 are before this Court.

5. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel