The court emphasizes that delayed prosecution leading to violation of constitutional rights and lack of criminal intent results in quashing charges.

ORDER

Petitioners are charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 420 , 120(B) r/w Section 34 of IPC, alleging that, the petitioners executed the registered sale deed on 13.11.2006 in favour of the defacto complainant suppressing the fact that the said property was acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) thus causing loss to the defacto complainant. Cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate of the aforesaid offences is impugned in this petition.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, the FIR was lodged on 14.11.2009, and the Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on 7.12.2009, and the Police after investigation submitted the charge sheet on 11.02.2016 after an inordinate delay of more then seven years thereby violating the constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In support, he places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar -vs- State of Maharashtra and Ors, reported in AIR 2008 SC 3077 .

3. He further submits that the sale deed contains an indemnity clause, whereby, the petitioners-accused have agreed to indemnify and compensate the defacto complainant on account of any default in the title of the accused.

4. He further submits that the allegation arises out of the alleged breach of contract, however, given a criminal texture. In support, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Deepak Gaba and others - vs- State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 3.

5. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that, the charge sheet material clearly discloses that, the petitioners-accused by suppressing the acquisition of the subject property by BDA have deliberately executed the sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant so as to defraud her. Hence, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate does not warrant any interference.

6. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

7. Perusal of the sale deed executed in favour of the defacto complainant indicates that there is a clause whereby the petitioners-accused have agreed to indemnify and compensate the defacto complainant in the event there is any default in the title of the accused.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Gaba and Others supra has held that, the pre-summoning evidence led by respondent No.2-complainant therein failed to establish the conditions and incidence of the penal liability set out under Sections 405 , 420, and 471 of IPC, as the allegations pertain to alleged breach of contractual obligations.

9. Even accepting the allegation made against the petitioners-accused on the face of it, utmost, tantamounts to breach of conditions contained in the sale deed and would not constitute the commission of the offence alleged against the petitioners-accused.

10. The FIR was lodged on 14.11.2009. The Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on 7.12.2009, and the Police after investigation submitted the charge sheet on 11.02.2016 after an inordinate delay of more then seven years thereby violating the constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar supra at paras 18 & 19 has held as follows:

18. In the present case, the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 read with Section 415 of the IPC are absent. The pre-summoning evidence does not disclose and establish the essential ingredients of Section 415 of the IPC. There is no assertion, much less legal evidence, t