Petitioner in all these 3 cases is common. What is called in question is different crimes registered against the petitioner. Criminal Petition 1375 of 2022 relates to Crime No.13 of 2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 447, 467, 468 and 417 of the IPC . Criminal Petition 1330 of 20222 relates to a challenge to crime No.14 of 2022 for the very same offences. Criminal Petition 1041 of 2022 arises out of Crime No.49 of 2021 registered for offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(2) and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘Act’ for short). Since the facts that arose for registering the aforesaid crimes are similar and the petitioner being common, these matters are taken up together and disposed by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts obtaining in Criminal Petition 1375 of 2022 are considered.

2. Heard Sri Amar Correa, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri.Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 in Crl.P.No.1375 of 2022 and 1330 of 2022 and Sri.B.B.Patil, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 in Crl.P.No.1041 of 2022 and Smt.B.N.Gauri, learned counsel along with Sri. Vinudeep R., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, in all the petitions.

3. The genesis of the problem is a Joint Development Agreement entered into between the petitioner/Company and the complainant’s family. The complainant is the 2nd respondent. The petitioner is one of the Directors of M/s.KSM Niketan Pvt. Ltd., a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. As observed hereinabove, the Company enters into a registered Joint Development Agreement of a property in Sy.No.152 measuring 4 acres and 20 guntas situated in K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru. The agreement is executed by all the children of one Muninarasamma, who was the owner of the said property. The step children are said to have been the confirming parties to the said agreement, which included the complainant.

4. The Company after entering into the agreement, developed the property into a residential villa project by name Olympia Enchante. The villa complex comprised of several residential villas. In all, 31 residential villas are constructed and developed by the Company. It is said that it is developed out of huge expenditure. After the project getting completed, the developer Company applied for occupancy certificate along with relevant documents. Occupancy certificate was sought to be granted by the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (‘BBMP’ for short) pending payment of a few lakhs as betterment charges. The developer Company sold their portion of the villas in terms of the sharing agreement that had been entered into in the year 2012 itself between the family of the complainant and the petitioner-Company. The purchasers who have occupied the villas are said to be in peaceful possession of those villas.

5. The complainant appears to have applied for occupancy certificate on a particular inter se understanding between the petitioner and the Company and not the Joint Development Agreement. One villa, villa No.21 comes to be sold in the year 2016. After about 6 years of the said sale, a crime comes to be registered on 14-01-2022 alleging the offences as afore-quoted. The contents of the complaint are that the Joint Development Agreement or the sharing agreement has been breached and the villa project is not completed within time. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.13 of 2022. Investigation is carried on. On the same set of facts, comes a second complaint by the very sam