Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.G.UMA
J.P. Golden Homes Properties Pvt Ltd., Represented By Its Director And Authorised Signatory, Sri. B. Kishore Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka, By J.P. Nagar Police Station, Rep. By SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore – Respondent
| 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 Cri
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
