IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Mere fact that the offence is covered under a ‘special statute’ would not inhibit Supreme Court or High Court from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of Constitution or Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
(2) Officers, who institute FIR, based on any complaint, are duty bound to be vigilant before invoking any provision of a very stringent statute, like SC/ST Act, which imposes serious penal consequences on concerned accused.

JUDGMENT :

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, respondent no.1 and respondent no.2.

2. Leave granted.

3. The present criminal appeal is directed against the Final Judgment and Order dated 23.02.2021 (herein-after referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) rendered by the High Court of Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) at Bengaluru, whereby the High Court was pleased to reject Criminal Petition No. 3788 of 2019 preferred by the appellant.

FACTUAL PRISM:

4. The Appellant is the Managing Director of GM Infinite Dwelling (India) Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “GMID”). The company is said to be engaged in developing residential properties. The said company and the owners (heirs of one Mr A. Hafeez Khan) of land bearing Survey Number 83 in Jodi Mallasandra Village, District Bengaluru entered into a Joint Development Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “JDA”) on 17.08.2009. In the year 2017, the apartment project, as contemplated under the JDA, was completed and sale deeds were executed in favour of the allottees.

5. The original owners of the land claimed title on the basis of possessing the sale deed with regard to the said land; order of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Inams Abolition, Bangalore in Case No. 86/1959-60 dated 09.07.1961; Revenue records recording the property mutated in the names of the heirs of Mr. A. Hafeez Khan and given Survey Numbers 83/1 and 83/2 [(old Survey Number 8) new Survey Number 83]. Pursuant to the JDA, the land-owners got the land-use changed from agriculture to non-agriculture and after getting the necessary No-Objection Certificate from various departments involved, obtained the sanctioned map and Building License from the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike (hereinafter referred to as the “BBMP”), before construction commenced.

6. It transpires that one Venkatesh, son of Late Bylappa, was the owner of old Survey Number 83 and his property had been assigned new Survey Numbers 80/1 and 80/3, and due to such change, with the new survey numbers with regard to the land in question being Survey Number 83, the said Venkatesh claimed title over land under the new Survey Number 83. This resulted in prolonged civil litigation which included an application before the Special Tehsildar; appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore, North Sub-Division, and; Appeal before the Special Deputy Commissioner – all of which went against Venkatesh.

7. But that is not all. There were also two suits – one filed by the legitimate land-owners, which was a suit for injunction, and one (which we have no hesitation in terming so) a frivolous suit filed by Venkatesh. Since Venkatesh’s suit did not yield any relief, he, along with others, approached the High Court with an appeal, which was also dismissed. In addition to this, Venkatesh also made an application before the Additional Director, Town Planning, BBMP and got the sanctioned plan cancelled. GMID impugned the cancellation before the High Court by way of a writ petition, which was disposed of directing GMID and the owners to approach the BBMP’s Appeal Committee. Upon so doing, BBMP’s Appeal Committee set aside the order of the Commissioner and restored the sanctioned plan.

8. The construction commenced and after GMID having entered into sale agreement(s) with prospective purchasers of the apartments, Venkatesh initiated criminal proceedings against the appellants and others and through his proxies, one of whom, namely, Parvathy Reddy had even been impleaded in the civil suit filed by Venkatesh. Another civil suit being O.S. No. 8163/2016 has also been filed against the land-owners and the builders by other person(s), which, as on date, is still pending. While these civil litigations were being defended by GMID and the original landlords in various courts, a criminal complaint was lodged by the mother of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 8163/2016, under Sections 120B, 406, 419, 468, 471, 420, 448, 427 read with Se