IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.G. UMA, J.
M/s. J.P. Golden Homes Properties Pvt Ltd., Represented By Its Director And Authorised Signatory, Sri. B. Kishore Kumar and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Karnataka, By J.P. Nagar Police Station, Rep. By SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 7353 of 2022 C/W Criminal Petition No. 3722 of 2022
Decided On : 09-06-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the fir and allegations against the petitioners. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. allegations of fraud and breach of trust (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's observations on the evidence and intent. (Para 7 , 8 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. conclusion on quashing of fir and implications of judgment (Para 9 , 26) |
| 5. legal standing and implications of land conversion (Para 10 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 24) |
| 6. details of the sale deeds and the informant's claims. (Para 11) |
| 7. arguments regarding the motives behind the fir. (Para 14) |
| 8. validity of sales and absence of criminal intent (Para 15 , 16 , 22) |
| 9. motives behind filing complaints and possible abuse of process (Para 20 , 21) |
| 10. final conclusion on the abuse of process and quashing of the fir. (Para 25) |
ORDER :
(M.G. UMA, J.)
The petitioners being accused No.1 – M/s J.P.Golden Homes Properties Pvt. Ltd. (“Developer“ for short) and the Director representing the Developer have filed Crl.P.No.7353/2022 seeking to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.17/2022 of Jayaprakash Nagar Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420 and 12B of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (“ IPC ” for short) produced as per Annexure- A.
2. Accused Nos.2 to 5 in Crime No.17/2022 of Jayaprakash Nagar Police Station have filed Crl.P.No.3722/2022 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them as stated above.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 as informant filed the first information before Jayaprakash Nagar Police Station against accused Nos.1 to 5 (petitioners herein) alleging commission of the offences under Sections 406 , 420 and 120B of IPC . The informant alleged that accused Nos.2 to 5 who were working in the State Bank of Mysore, along with others formed the Society by name “the State Bank of Mysore Officers Housing Co-Operative Society Limited” (“the Society” for short) and contacted the informant and others by proclaiming that the Society is developing the land and forming a residential layout in Singarahalli village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, through the Developer represented by its Director B. Kishore Kumar i.e., accused No.1.
4. It is also stated by the accused that they have sought legal opinion from the legal adviser of the State Bank of India regarding the marketability of title to the land who opined that there is marketable title to sell/purchase the sites that could be formed in the layout. Therefore, it was decided that the layout in the name of Sir M.Vishveshwaraiah, who is the founder of State Bank of Mysore, was to be formed. The accused have offered sites at the rate of Rs.550/- per sq.ft., by issuing a Circular under the name of the Society. The said circular was circulated to the various branches of the State Bank of Mysore with an intention to influence the staff members to purchase the sites in question.
5. It is contended that the informant had paid the consideration amount and got the sale deed registered in his favour. About 320 such employees of the State Bank of Mysore have purchased the sites under various registered sale deeds executed through the Developer at the instance of the Society represented by the accused.
6. It is stated by the informant that the accused have promised to develop the layout by obtaining necessary ‘No Objection Certificates’ from various authorities. But even after lapse of several years, the land was not developed. It was brought to the notice of the informant that since the layout is very near to Bengaluru International Airport at Devanahalli, the Society and Developer could not get the approval to develop the layout from the Bengaluru International Airport Area Planning Authority (“BIAAPA” for short). It is stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District has passed an order cancelling the order of conversion of the land to residential purpose, which was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura. Therefore, the informant and other members who have purchased the si
No criminal intent or breach of trust found in execution of sale deeds; FIR quashed due to abuse of process after extensive delay.
Fraudulent intent must be established for criminal liability in financial transactions, distinguishing between civil breaches of contract and criminal offenses like cheating.
The court affirmed that allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating can coexist with civil disputes, allowing criminal proceedings to continue.
Term “criminal conspiracy” is defined under Section 120A of the IPC as to mean when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, an illegal act, or an act with is not illegal by illegal mean....
Criminal liability for cheating requires proof of dishonest intent from inception, distinguishing breach of contract from criminal offence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.