Point of law : Mere pending of Arbitration proceedings cannot be a ground to quash the charge sheet and set aside the order of High Court in quashing the charge sheet.

ORDER :

1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C read with Article 226 of Constitution of India praying this Court to quash the FIR dated 24.01.2020 registered by respondent No.1 in Crime No.19/2020 pending on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 506, 120B, 420, 435, 447 read with Section 34 of IPC and quash the complaint dated 06.12.2019 filed on 24.01.2020 by respondent No.2 with respondent No.1 and pass such other orders as deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.1/complainant had filed the complaint dated 06.12.2019 before respondent No.1 and in the complaint an averment is made that the Company is carrying on the business of real estate development and has entered into a registered joint development agreement dated 11.02.2011 with one Sri. George Thangiah, who is the owner of the property, for the joint development of the property bearing non-agricultural converted land bearing Corporation No.2, situated on 80 feet road, Indiranagar, Bengaluru measuring 2,16,283.50 square feet along with other adjacent lands. The said land owner Sri. George Thangiah also executed a General Power of Attorney in their favour to proceed with the joint development and construction of a Mall therein, which was to be named ‘GEORGE THANGIAH NITESH MALL’.

3. Petitioner No.1 herein is said to be the second wife of Sri. George Thangiah and second petitioner herein is the Manager working under her. Even though Sri. George Thangiah was cooperative in enabling them to proceed with the joint development works as per the joint development agreement initially, later on as Sri. George Thangiah has become aged and the petitioner No.1 took over the affairs and started troubling them. In exercise of their rights under the joint development agreement, they had put up barricade on all four sides of the property, a big hoarding, installed a POTA cabin with adequate lighting being provided to the property, hoarding, POTA etc.

4. Petitioner No.1 with dishonest intention of cheating created a false dispute/discord which led to arbitration proceedings and the same has been adjudicated during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings. The petitioner No.1 along with her goondas and henchmen and with the active connivance of petitioner No.2 herein illegally demolished/dismantled the barricade put up by them in front of the property, which issue had also become the subject matter of the arbitration dispute. After the award was passed on 25.04.2018, an when they have filed the appeal before the City Civil Court Bengaluru, these two petitioners with their goondas, on the last week of October, 2019, with a dishonest intention of cheating and causing loss to them again tried to trespass into the property and caused damage to the barricades on all the remaining three sides by demolishing/removing the said barricades illegally. When the same was questioned by their representatives, they were subjected to abuse in a filthy language and caused the threat. It is contended that they had paid a huge amount towards deposit of Rs.105 Crores as per the joint development agreement. They incurred huge expenses for the said barricade, putting up of hoardings, erecting POTA Cabin and providing lighting connections and for other allied works such as land leveling, architect fees, consultant charges etc.,

5. In fact, they suffered a loss of approximately Rs.2,00,00,000/-on account of the destruction of the barricade, hoarding, POTA cabin and lighting by the accused persons, which is a result of the criminal conspiracy entered into by the accused persons with common dishonest intentions. Hence, requested the police to take action against the petitioners herein. In view of the registration of the case based on the complaint, the petitioners are before this Court.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend t