CAV ORDER

In this petition, petitioner - sole accused seeks quashing of the impugned complaint and FIR dated 29.04.2024 registered in Crime No.366/2024 by the 1^st respondent - Police, pursuant to a complaint dated 29.04.2024 lodged by the 2^nd respondent - de facto complainant for alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC and for other reliefs.

2. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl.SPP for 1^st respondent-State and learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and perused the material on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned complaint and FIR in order to contend that necessary ingredients constituting the alleged offences have not been made out by the 2^nd respondent. It was submitted that the petitioner and 2^nd respondent and his brothers Sri.N.M.Tulasi Ram and Sri.N.M.Ravi had entered into agreements in relation to immovable property from 2003 onwards and the 2^nd respondent is illegally attempting to convert an alleged civil dispute into a criminal action by filing the impugned complaint, which deserves to be quashed. In support of his contentions, learned Senior counsel placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

(i) Binod Kumar and others vs. State of Bihar and Another - (2014)10 SCC 663;

(ii) R.Nagender Yadav vs. State of Telengana and Another - (2023) 2 SCC 195.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent would reiterate the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

(i) Bhaskar Lal Sharma and Another vs. Monica - (2009) 10 SCC 604;

(ii) Lallan Chaudhary & others vs. State of Bihar & Anr. - (2006) 12 SCC 229;

(iii) Santosh B.Reddy & others vs. The State - Crl.P.No.8448/2023 Dated 19.07.2024;

(iv) Supertech Limited vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association & others - (2021) 10 SCC 1;

(v) Sri.Kirti K.Mehta & Anr. vs. State of Karnataka & others - Crl.P.No.6658/2024 & connected matters Dated 21.10.2024;

(vi) Ram Lal Yadav. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh - Crl.Misc.5939/1978 Dated 02.01.1989;

(vii) Pramod Kumar Gadia vs. State of West Bengal - C.R.R.No.1450/2005 dated 02.10.2006;

(viii) Aniruddh Singh vs. State of Rajasthan - S.B.Crl.Mis.(P) No.5116/2017 Dated 09.02.2018;

(ix) Sanjay Pandey & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. - C.R.R.No.2342/2018 Dated 02.12.2019.

5. Both sides have filed their written synopsis in support of their contentions and the same are taken on record.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

7. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be apposite to extract the impugned complaint dated 29.04.2024 (translated version) which reads as under:-

To,

The Police Inspector,

HAL Police Station,

Bengaluru – 560037.

Subject: Complaint against C. Gopalan, M/s Gopalan Enterprises, No.5, Richmond Road, for cheating, fraud, creating documents, and constructing buildings illegally-reg.

Respected Sir,

I, the complainant, N.M. Narendra Reddy, son of N.C. Munireddy, aged about 57 years, residing at No.103/6, 6th Main Road, Kote N.C. Munireddy Nilaya, Doddanekkundi, Bangalore – 560037, hereby submit the following complaint:

Mobile : 9880127208 on 07/03/03 to on 29/04/2024

2. My brothers 1) N.M. Ravi and 2) N.M. Tulasi Ram and I are the owners of land in Chinnappanahalli village, Survey No.16, area 5 acres 6 guntas, and Survey No.45, area 2 acres 39 guntas, totalling 8 acres 5 guntas. The accused, C. Gopalan, operates a partnership firm under the name M/s Gopalan Enterprises and has been engaged in building construction business in Bengaluru city. In this context, C. Gopalan approached us and proposed that if we give him the above- mentioned land