1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5499/2019

BETWEEN:

MR. PURUSHOTHAM RAI

S/O. HUKRAPPA RAI

AGED 40 YEARS

R/AT CENTRAL PARK APARTMENT

FLAT NO.401

BEHIND ABHARANA JEWELRY

KADRI, SHIVABAGH

MANGALURU-575 002

REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR

RAI PROMOTORS (P) LTD.

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

KANKANADY TOWN POLICE STATION

REPRESENTED BY SPP

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

BANGALURU-560 001

2.

SATYENDRAKUMAR GOYAL

AUTHORIZED PARTNER

M/s. SAI SHRADHA REALTORS

REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, G2

AKSHAT BUILDING

RAM MANDIR ROAD

2

BORIVALI EAST

MUMBAI-400 091.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1

SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482

OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS

AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN FIR FILED BY 2^ND RESPONDENT

AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CR.NO.62/2019 OF KANKANADY

TOWN P.S., ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT FOR THE ALLEGED

OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406, 420, 471 AND

468 OF IPC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned

High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent

No.1/State and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

2.

The factual matrix of the case is that this petitioner

entered into a Joint Development Agreement (’JDA for short)

with respondent No.2 and received a sum of Rs.5 Crores from

3

him. The petitioner did not act upon in pursuance of the JDA in

respect of 8 acres and 64 guntas of land instead of he agreed to

sell the property to the extent of 2 acres, which was standing in

favour of mother of the complainant and subsequently he

entered into the sale agreement dated 5.4.2016 with some one

else. Hence, he has committed an offence punishable under

Section 406 and 420 of IPC. Based on the complaint, the police

have registered a case in Crime No.62/2019 for the offences

punishable under Sections 406, 420, 471 and 468 of IPC.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that when the JDA not acted upon, notice was issued and reply

was also given and thereafter a suit was filed. Hence, it is clear

that there is a civil dispute between the parties. The learned

counsel also brought to the notice of this Court, document No.5

that there was a complaint and the said complaint is inter se

between the petitioner and its partners. The civil dispute

converted as criminal case by filing a false complaint. Hence, it

requires an interference of this Court.

4

4.

Per

contra,

learned

counsel

for

respondent

No.2/Complainant would submit that though the amount of Rs.5

Crores was received and subsequent to entering into the JDA,

the petitioner also created interest in favour of other persons by

executing the Sale Agreement dated 5.4.2016. Hence, it clearly

shows that in order to commit the fraud on respondent No.2, the

petitioner has indulged in entering into the Sale Agreement.

Hence, this Court cannot exercise the powers under Section 482

of Cr.P.C.

5.

Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing

for respondent No.1/State would submit that based on the

complaint, the offences are invoked against the petitioner and

the stage of investigation and the complaint cannot be quashed

at this stage.

6.

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for

the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing

for respondent No.1/State and learned counsel for respondent

No.2 and on perusal of the complaint averments, a specific

allegation has been made against this petitioner with regard to

5

committi