Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1659
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
J.M. KHAZI, J.
Mr. Suchendra B.R., S/o. B.N. Raj Urs and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Mr Venkataramana Yenigalla, S/o. Bapayya Y. - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 6643 of 2018 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) C/W Criminal Petition No. 6642 of 2018
Decided On : 05-08-2025
For the Petitioners:Sri. Vikram Unni Rajagopal, Advocate
For the Respondents:Sri. Mahesh C.M., Advocate
Continuation of criminal proceedings is deemed an abuse of process when parties have settled their disputes, necessitating quashing of earlier court orders.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 177, 199, 465, 120-B, 200 - Petitioners challenged the orders of the trial Court, which took cognizance of the offence under Section 465 IPC and remanded the matter to the trial Court - The grievances center on the formation of an Apartment Owners Association under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 - It was contended that the formation was improper due to failure in adhering to statutory requirements and allegations of forgery in executed documents. (Paras 3, 5, 10)
(B) Legal Principles - The court emphasized that continuation of criminal proceedings that amount to abuse of process should be quashed, especially when the parties reached a settlement regarding their disputes. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The complainant and accused share ownership of flats, with allegations that the accused improperly formed an Apartment Owners Association without following statutory guidelines and forged documents regarding consent.
Findings of Court:
The petitions were allowed, the trial Court’s cognizance order was set aside, and the associated complaints were dismissed due to settlement between the parties.
Issues: Whether the trial Court’s cognizance of the offences was justified and if continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that given the settlement between parties, maintaining criminal proceedings would be unjustified and an abuse of judicial processes.
Result: Petitions allowed and subsequent orders set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. context and background of the petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. developer's compliance with ownership laws. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. claims of forged documents and defence assertions. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. quashing of proceedings due to settlement. (Para 13) |
ORDER :
J.M. KHAZI, J.
These petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are arising out of criminal proceedings initiated in PCR.No.658/2018 on the file of II Addl. First Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Mysuru.
-
2. In both petitions, petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 13 are common.
3. While in Crl.P.No.6643/2018, petitioners have challenged the order dated 22.02.2018, passed by the trial Court taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 465 IPC, but declining to the cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 199, 201, 120-B IPC. In Crl.P.No.6642/2018, they have challenged the order dated 30.07.2018 in Crl.RP.No.140/2018 on the file of II Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysuru, whereby it allowed the Criminal revision petition, filed by the complainant and remanded the case to the trial Court, with a direction to pass necessary orders in the light of the observations made during the course of the order.
4. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.
-
5. The undisputed facts are that complainant and accused are owners of flats in Brigade Symphony bearing Khatha No.488 coming under Koorgalli village Panchayath, Mysuru. The grievance of complainant is that as per the provisions of Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 and Rules, 1974, ('KAOA' for short), the Karnataka Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1972 and Rules, 1975 ('KOFA' for short) and the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and Rules, ('RERA' for short) Brigade Enterprises Limited being the developer is duty-bound to submit the schedule project under the provisions of KAOA and form a legitimate and registered Apartment Owners Association and then transfer the management of the apartment complex and the title of the common areas of project to the said Association. However, it is not done. The developer has already collected advance maintenance from all the owners, including the complainant for the period from 01.12.2016 to 13.11.2017. It is often threatening that it would not take up the responsibility of maintenance, after the period. It is not coming forward to form the association in compliance with KAOA.
-
6. On 24.08.2017, the developer sent a notice calling for Annual General Body Meeting to form Brigade Symphony Owners Association on 17.09.2017, along with the proposed Bye-laws. Without a deed of declaration, joined by all the apartment owners and registration, the adoption of Bye-laws is illegal. The Annual General Body Meeting could be held only after registration of deed of declaration. In the light of the same, complainant along with like minded apartment owners, got issued legal notice dated 08.09.2017 to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Developer group and accused No.1. However, they went ahead with the Annual General Body Meeting and declared that they would register the Association under KAOA within two months.
-
7. On 21.11.2017, complainant received an email on behalf of the developer, announcing the formation of Brigade Symphony Owners Association under the provisions of KAOA fixing the maintenance charges from 01.12.2017 to 31.03.2018 at ₹3.6 per square feet and that account is opened with Corporation Bank. It did not contain the names of the office bearers and executive members of the new association as well as the name of the association. Complainant sought clarification of the said documents. However, he was not furnished with the details and documents.
8. He collected certified copy of the deed of declaration dated 02.11.2017, wherein it is stated that complainant has also given approval
