Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for civil disputes; the court emphasized the need for compliance with procedural safeguards under BNSS before FIR registration.

CAV ORDER

The petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 are at the doors of this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.733 of 2024, for offences punishable under Sections 316, 318, 336 and 340 of BNS, by Bellanduru Police Station arising out of PCR No.11817 of 2024, pending before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

2. Heard Sri Prabhuling K.Navadgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri Ravi B.Naik, learned senior counsel for Sri K.B.Mounesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The 2^nd respondent is the complainant. The complainant is said to be owning certain lands in and around the city of Bengaluru. He enters into a Joint Development Agreement (‘JDA’) with one M/s.Vaishnavi Infrastructure Private Limited on 24-01-2018. Pursuant to the JDA for the purpose of construction or development of infrastructure, an allocation agreement dated 13-06-2019 is entered into by the land owners and the developer. In furtherance of the said agreement, another agreement comes to be registered for division of the area pursuant to development. Pursuant to the execution of the said agreement, another agreement of lease was executed for the north tower of the project. Several lease deeds have emerged thereafter, and the dispute between the two arose with regard to payment of money. The petitioner No.1 invoking Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act approached the concerned Court in Commercial AA No.350 of 2023. Certain injunctive orders are passed in the said commercial AA against the land owners. It is the case of the petitioners that despite the land owners being injuncted, they always created problem for the peaceful functioning or possession of the area, which was to be owned by the developer. During the pendency of the aforesaid civil proceedings, a crime in Crime No.733 of 2024 comes to be registered on a private complaint made by the 2^nd respondent against these petitioners for the aforesaid offences. The Police then issued a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS seeking presence of the petitioners for investigation. It is then the subject petition is preferred and certain protective orders are passed.

4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the issue in the lis is purely civil in nature. The crime is registered for the purpose of recovery of money. It is clearly impermissible in law on plethora of judgments rendered by the Apex court. It is his case that criminal law cannot be and should not be set into motion in cases, which are purely civil in nature. He would submit that on the same issue, there are several civil proceedings instituted against the petitioners or by the petitioners against the 2^nd respondent. He would, therefore, submit that the proceedings should be quashed.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri Mounesh Kumar representing the 2^nd respondent would vehemently refute the submissions of the learned senior counsel. He would contend that in the first blush, it may look like a civil transaction between the two. No doubt, the petitioners have instituted several proceedings including invoking Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. That does not mean that offences are not made out. The offences, according to the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent is, deceitfully using the portion of the property belonging to the complainant; leasing it out to third