Filing a second criminal complaint or FIR on the same facts without disclosing a prior investigation that ended in a 'B' report constitutes an abuse of the process of law and warrants quashing of the proceedings.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING REGISTERED IN C.C.NO.14745/2018 (CRIME NO.80/2018) UNDER SECTIONS 120(B), 420 AND 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners have challenged the charge sheet filed against them by the respondent No.5 in C.C. No.14745/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B , 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'), which is pending consideration before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. They have also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent authorities to enquire into the complaints dated 21.09.2017, 09.10.2017, 21.04.2018 and 23.06.2018/07.05.2018 filed by the petitioner No.1 against respondent Nos.6 and others and to take action in accordance with law.

(i). The respondent No.6 and others appear to have entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 on 23.12.2015 to purchase 01 Acre 38½ guntas of land in Sy. No.76/1 situate at Gonighattapura Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, and a contemporaneous power of attorney was purportedly executed by the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 in favour of the respondent No.6 and Mr. Jawahar Gopal in respect of 01 Acre 38½ guntas of land in Sy. No.76/1 on 23.12.2015. It appears that the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 executed a sale deed dated 18.05.2016 through their power of attorney in favour of respondent No.6 and Mr. Jawahar Gopal and conveyed them the land measuring 01 Acre 38½ guntas in Sy. No.76/1 of Gonighattapura village.

(ii). It appears that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 executed another agreement of sale dated 23.12.2015 in favour of M/s. Classic Featherlite Waterfront Developers LLP, (for short, 'the Firm'), a limited liability partnership Firm of which respondent No.6 and Mr. Jawahar Gopal are Partners in respect of 03 Acres 07 guntas of land in Sy. No.33 of Gonighattapura Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, and a contemporaneous power of attorney was executed by the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 in favour of the said Firm in respect of the said 03 Acres 07 guntas of land in Sy. No.33.

(iii). The respondent No.6 alleged that the accused No.2 / petitioner No.2 and accused No.3 represented to him that they were the absolute owners of the land measuring 02 acres 05 guntas in Sy No.70/1 of Gonighattapura village and that the land measuring 03 acres 07 guntas in Sy. No.33 of Gonighattapura village, was bequeathed to the petitioner Nos.2 and accused No.3 under a Will dated 06.01.2010 executed by Sri G.P. Laksmaiah Reddy, father of Smt. Sudha (accused No.2) and father-in-law of Srinivasa Reddy (accused No.3). Subsequently, khatas of the said properties were changed to the names of accused Nos.2 and 3.

(iv). The respondent No.6 alleged that the accused No.2/ petitioner No.2 and accused No.3 after receipt of the entire sale consideration, have fraudulently executed a release deed dated 14.02.2017 in favour of accused No.5 releasing their rights in respect of the land measuring 03 Acres 05 guntas in Sy. No.33.

(v). The respondent No.6 further alleged that the accused No.5 / petitioner No.4 colluding with accused Nos.1 to 4 has filed appeal R.A. No.359/2017 on 21.02.2017 challenging the mutation orders passed in favour of her mother and father i.e. accused No.3 and accused No.4 / petitioner No.3 stating that the properties were ancestral in nature and she also had rights over the properties and the said appeal was posted on 20.03.2017 for issuance of notice to other parties. On the very same day, accused Nos.2 to 5 filed a compromise petition stating that the properties were