ORDER

1. A complaint was lodged complaining that a Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”) had been entered into on 03.02.2010, under which 43% of the built-up area should be conveyed to the landowners i.e., the complainant, and that the builder was entitled to the remaining 57%. However, the builder had conveyed all the flats that he had constructed without discharging his obligation of conveying 43% of the built-up area to the landowners.

2. In the complaint, it was also stated that the builder in order to secure loans from the banks had forged the signatures of the landowners in the indemnity bonds that had been submitted to the banks, on the basis of which loans had been raised.

3. On the basis of this complaint, a crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 471, 420, 465, 468 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

4. Being aggrieved of this registration of crime, the present petition has been filed.

5. Sri.Sharath S Gowda–learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the entire set of allegations in the complaint are directed against accused No.1 i.e., Praveen Kumar D–the Managing Partner of the builder, and that the petitioner is only a partner and the allegation against him was therefore without any basis.

6. Secondly, he submits that the complainant has also initiated arbitration proceedings to enforce the terms of the MoU and, therefore, the initiation of criminal prosecution was unwarranted and the same is thus vitiated.

7. Thirdly, he submits that the allegation regarding forgery of the signatures of the landowners in the indemnity bonds are extremely vague and that they are made only to enforce the terms of the contract. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mitesh Kumar J. Sha1 .

8. Learned counsel for the complainant, per contra, submitted that there are specific allegations that though the MoU indicated a certain percentage of built-up area to be handed over, the Developer, of which the petitioner was one of the partners, had cheated the landowners by conveying all the flats and by not offering any flats that they had constructed to the builders, and this clearly indicated that there was an intent to cheat from the very beginning of the execution of the MoU.

9. He submits that the second part of the complaint, which contains averments that the indemnity bonds were forged, is by itself a serious offence which requires to be Mitesh Kumar J. Sha v. State of Karnataka & Ors., AIR Online 2021 SC 936.

investigated and should not be impeded by entertaining this petition.

10. As could be seen from the complaint averments, the allegations against the developer, of which the petitioner is a partner, is that there was an MoU, under which a certain specified percentage of the built-up area was to be conveyed, but notwithstanding the MoU, the entire built- up area had been conveyed by the Developer. This indicated that the intent of the Developer was to cheat the landowners from very beginning.

11. A reading of the complaint insofar as it relates to forgery would indicate that the builder in order to secure a loan from banks had forged the signatures of the landowners in the indemnity bonds, thereby trying to create a financial obligation on the part of the owners, even though there was none. This would obviously be a serious charge which would require a detailed investigation.

12. Reliance placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court would be of no avail since the present case is not that of mere non-performance of the terms of the MoU, but one of cheating. The allegation in the complaint is that not a single flat had been conveyed, as opposed to the case dealt by the Supreme Court wherein the only dispute was regarding the extent of flats that had to be conveyed. 13. In my view, these allegations are serious in nature and are required to be investigated. The present case is not a fit one to be entertained under Section 482 of the CrPC, and the same is theref