A partner of a developer sought quashing of an FIR alleging failure to convey 43% of built-up area to landowners under an MoU and forgery of their signatures on indemnity bonds for bank loans. The court held the allegations disclosed cheating requiring investigation and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2352 OF 2021 (482)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMIPATEL, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI ADIT CHANDANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI KARTHIK.N., ADVOCATES FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.08.2019 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE FIR REGISTERED
NC: 2024:KHC:25528 CRL.P No. 2352 of 2021
IN CR.NO.379/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ACMM, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B RESPECTIVELY, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Memorandum of Understanding (“ MoU ”) had been entered into on 03.02.2010, under which 43% of the built-up area should be conveyed to the landowners i.e., the complainant, and that the builder was entitled to the remaining 57%. However, the builder had conveyed all the flats that he had constructed without discharging his obligation of conveying 43% of the built-up area to the landowners.
indemnity bonds are extremely vague and that they are made only to enforce the terms of the contract. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mitesh Kumar J. Sha1 .
1 Mitesh Kumar J. Sha v. State of Karnataka & Ors., AIR Online 2021 SC 936.
investigated and should not be impeded by entertaining this petition.
Court would be of no avail since the present case is not that of mere non-performance of the terms of the MoU, but one of cheating. The allegation in the complaint is that not a single flat had been conveyed, as opposed to the case dealt by the Supreme Court wherein the only dispute was regarding the extent of flats that had to be conveyed.
and are required to be investigated. The present case is not a fit one to be entertained under Section 482 of the CrPC, and the same is therefore dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
GSR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR alleging breach of an MoU and forgery of signatures on indemnity bonds should be quashed against the petitioner under Section 482 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mitesh Kumar J. Sha v. State of Karnataka & Ors.Distinguished¶12
Mitesh Kumar J. Sha v. State of Karnataka & Ors., AIR Online 2021 SC 936. · Who else cites this
7 provisions across 2 enactments
Srinivasa Dosapathi
State of Karnataka by Ramamurthy Nagar P.S., Bangalore
Sri. Vishnukanth G Kathare
N S Sanjay Gowda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
