IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating can coexist with civil disputes, allowing criminal proceedings to continue.

ORDER :

M. Nagaprasanna, J.

The petitioners in these cases are either developers or former Directors or those who have come into the shoes of developers. The complainants in all these cases are different home buyers from M/s Unishire Homes LLP. The grievance of different complainants in all these cases is common. Therefore, facts obtaining in Criminal Petition No.6658 of 2024 are noticed in entirety and facts obtaining in other petitions are succinctly narrated.

2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:

The petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 6658 of 2024 are the partners of the Company, a Limited Liability Partnership concern said to be incorporated under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 in the name and style of M/s Unishire Homes LLP (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’ for short). The petitioners claim to have resigned from the partnership way back in the year 2015 and claim to be disassociated with the Company. The petitioners, on the request of existing partners to continue to be the authorized signatories, the 1st petitioner is said to have continued as authorized signatory, but however, they did not engage in the day-to-day affairs of the Company. The averment in the petition is that the Company takes up development of immovable property in Sy.No.78 of Thannisandra Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk in all measuring 2 acres 33.5 guntas by entering into a Joint Development Agreement (‘JDA’ for short) with land owners. For the purpose of developing the property, the Company had availed financial assistance from one M/s Vistra ITCL Limited. After the financial assistance availed of by the petitioners, a tripartite agreement was entered into between the Company, M/s Vistra ITCL Limited and a third entity who agreed to fund in the project and complete the project i.e., M/s S.A. Enterprises.

2.1. The petitioners further aver that the complainant failed to get the sale deed registered despite communication of two mails calling upon him to come forward to get the sale deed registered in terms of agreement of sale entered into on 19-02-2013 between the Company and the complainant. It is further averred that despite several requests and demands made by the Company, the complainant failed to get the sale deed registered in terms of the agreement of sale. Owing to the failure of the complainant in coming forward and paying the balance sale consideration, the apartments were sold in favour of third parties. It is then, the complainant has registered the complaint. This is the broad allegation against the Company and M/s S.A. Enterprises, who got into the shoes of the Company for completion of the project, in all these petitions and accordingly, the complainants have registered their respective complaints in all these cases.

3. Heard Sri G S Venkat Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for petitioners in Crl.P.Nos.6658 of 2024, 5922 of 2024, 6436 of 2024, 6766 of 2024 and 6846 of 2024; Sri Venkatesh R Bhagat, learned counsel appearing for petitioners in Crl.P.No.5089 of 2024; Sri Shridhara K, learned counsel appearing for petitioner in Crl.P.No.5807 of 2024; Smt Nayana Tara B G, learned counsel appearing for petitioners in Crl.P.No.6166 of 2024; Sri K G Aiyappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.6658 of 2024, 5807 of 2024 and 6166 of 2024; for respondents 2 and 3 in Crl.P.Nos.5922 of 2024, 6766 of 2024 and 6846 of 2024; Sri Asim Malik, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 in Crl.P.No.5089 of 2024 and Crl.P.No.6436 of 2024 and Sri B N Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondents No.1 in all the petitions.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Sri G.S. Venkat Subba Rao in few of the petitions and Sri Venkatesh R Bhagath in few of the petitions and Smt. B.G. Nayana Tara in one of the petitions have projected common submissions. The submi