Point of law: Investigation in crime - When the complaint prima facie discloses committing of cognizable offence, the High Court should not venture to restrain the investigating officer and the investigating officer has to probe and unearth the crime

ORDER :

This petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C praying this court to quash the FIR in Cr.No.195/2020 on the file of IV Additional CMM, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 409 and 384 of IPC, sections 38, 39, 40, 5 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act and section 4 of the Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 has filed the complaint before the respondent No.1 on 20.8.2020 making the allegations against the petitioners that the complainant is the authorized representative of M/s Sanchaya Land and Estate Private Limited, a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act and carrying out the business of project development and construction. The complainant was authorized to prefer the present complaint. It is alleged in the complaint that accused Nos. 1 and 3 who are husband and wife are Directors of accused No.5 which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The accused persons claim to be in the business of unofficial financing among other things and are on the look out for soft targets to lend money and in turn usurp their immovable properties by charging illegal interest rates, which can never be repaid. The said accused persons were introduced by one Rajiv Gupta, finance facilitator, befriended personnel of the said company and in August 2019 misled the complainant into taking a business loan in a sum of Rs.75,00,000/-. The said money was received via cheque payments and Rajiv Gupta received commission. The accused persons dishonestly and fraudulently deceived the complainant with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the company and wrongful gain to themselves, into accepting, that since they do not have a money lenders licence and would be charging high interest rate at 2% per month till repayment of the principal amount of the loan advanced, they should instead of executing an MOU for the said loan, secure the loan amount by ostensibly transferring sale deeds of 6 flats/properties bearing Nos. 102, 503, 601, 602, 701, 801 in Maple Blocks which form part of the said company’s project at Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, in the name of accused No.1 during August 2019. The accused insisted that they have to execute sale deeds at circle value instead of market value, as the same was only a formality to secure the loan advanced and therefore despite the cumulative consideration amount for the 6 flats being Rs.1,05,75,000/-, Rs.30,75,000/-was returned. They were further misled into executing bogus rent agreements during the same period, to secure in favour of the accused the 2% per monthly interest amount ostensibly payable as rent initially for 11 months which agreements would extend indefinitely, till the principal amount is not paid. It was agreed that on payment of principal amount, the sale and rent documents executed in August 2019 would be cancelled. It is also the allegation that on 26.2.2020 accused No.3 misled the said company i.e., taking into a business loan in a sum of Rs.2,24,10,080/-. The said money was received via cheque payments from accused No.2’s personal account. Hence, in the complaint the complainant sought to take action against the accused on the ground that they dishonestly and fraudulently deceived the complainant with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the company and wrongful gain to themselves to secure the loan amount. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case and investigated the matter and consequent upon the registration of FIR based on the complaint, petitioners are before this court.

3. Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that in view of the understanding between the parties, respondent No.2 is the developer who developed the project agreed to sell 6 flats in favour of petitioner No.1 and 20 flats in favour of petitioner No.2 and 30 flats in favour of petitioner No.3. In this connection, sale agreement was also executed and subsequent