Charges of criminal breach of trust and cheating can coexist in separate transactions, but not for a single act or transaction which is mutually exclusive.

ORDER :

M.I.ARUN, J.

There were certain financial transactions between the petitioner and respondent no.2. There were disputes between the parties. It resulted in respondent no.2 filing a complaint dated 06.04.2019 with respondent no.1-Police against the petitioner herein. It resulted in an FIR being registered against the petitioner in Crime No.73/2019. The same was challenged before this Court in Crl.P.No.4736/2019 by the petitioner. However, the same was dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the charge sheet as and when filed. The petitioner challenged the decision passed in Crl.P.No.4736/2019 before the Apex Court which came to be withdrawn.

2. After investigation, respondent no.1-Police have filed a police report which has resulted in C.C.No.10899/2023 being registered against the petitioner on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. The same is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

3. The case of the petitioner is that, he cannot be charged for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC simultaneously, as both the offences are mutually destructive. It shows that the jurisdictional police have not applied their mind to the facts of the case and without any investigation, have blindly filed the charge sheet based solely on the complaint averments.

4. This Court while passing the order in Crl.P.No.4736/2019 in paragraph nos.11.8 and 12.2 has observed as hereunder:

"11.8. In that background, I am of the considered view that there is some credence and merit in the submissions made by Sri Aravind Kamath, learned Senior Counsel for the complainant that the termination is only to cheat the developer, of course the same would have to be established during the course of investigation and/or trial.

12.2. In the present case, I am unable to come to a conclusion that there is no criminal offence which has been made out on an ex facie reading of the documents presented. The present proceedings having been filed seeking for quashing of the FIR prior to investigation being completed, in my opinion, does not merit consideration."

Because of which, the criminal petition was dismissed.

5. Respondent no.2 has made a complaint wherein certain facts have been set out regarding the transaction between petitioner and respondent no.2 and it is alleged that the petitioner has committed criminal breach of trust and cheating in respect of the transaction between petitioner and respondent no.2.

6. A reading of the complaint and police report discloses that a complaint has been made against the petitioner that he was the owner of 8 acres 6 guntas of land in Sy.No.1 and 1 gunta of land in Sy.No.55 (totally measuring 8 acres 7 guntas) situated at Doddabettahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. That he entered into a joint development agreement in respect of the property with the complainant and that the complainant spent huge money to get the necessary permissions to develop the property concerned. The complainant had paid huge sums as refundable deposit in respect of the property. However, the petitioner did not come forward to execute a sharing agreement as required.

7. It is also discloses that petitioner was the owner of 4 acres 24 guntas of land in property bearing No.21, Block 1, Harappanahalli Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk and in respect of the said land also he entered into a similar joint development agreement with the respondent, by receiving certain money towards refundable deposit and thereafter did not come forward to execute a sharing agreement as agreed upon.

8. It a