Karnataka High Court
Sri Kirti K Mehta vs State Of Karnataka By on 2 April, 2024
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13649
CRL.P No. 3118/2024
C/W CRL.P No.2879/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3118/2024
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2879/2024
IN CRL.P No.3118/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI KIRTI K MEHTA
S/O LATE SRI KANTILAL MEHTA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
2. SRI PRATIK K MEHTA
S/O SRI KIRTI K MEHTA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT M/S UNISHIRE
TERRAZZA, SRVE NO 78
THANISANDRA, K.R. PURAM HOBLI
BANALORE CITY - 560 016.
Digitally PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
signed by NO 301, MOUDGAL HOMES NO.6
PAVITHRA N UPPER PIPELINE ROAD
Location: KUMARA PARK WEST
High Court
of Karnataka BANGALORE - 560 023.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI G.S. VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SAMPIGEHALLI POLICE STATION
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13649
CRL.P No. 3118/2024
C/W CRL.P No.2879/2024
2. SRI AMJAD I KHAN
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O SRI ISRAR AHMED KHAN
3. SMT. BHAVANA PRITMANI KHAN
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WIFE OF MR AMJAD I KHAN.
NO.2 & 3 RESIDING AT
BELVEDERE 1503, LODHA AURUM
GRANDE, KANJURMARG EAST
MUMBAI - 400042.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FORR-1)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
FIR AND COMPLAINT LODGED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN
CR.NO.167/2024 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE i.e.,
SAMPIGEHALLI POLICE STATION, SAMPIGEHALLI, BENGALURU FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 06, 120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING ON
THE FILE OF IV ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND
B RESPECTIVELY.
IN CRL.P No.2879/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI KIRTI K. MEHTA
S/O LATE SRI KANTILAL MEHTA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
2. SRI PRATHIK K. MEHTA
S/O SRI KIRTI K. MEHTA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
BOTH RESIDING M/S UNISHIRE
HOMES LLP, SRVE NO.78
THANISANDRA, K.R. PURAM HOBLI
BANGALORE CITY - 560 016
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.301
MOUDGAL HOMES, NO.6
UPPER PIPELINE ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE - 560 023.
...PETITIONERS
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:13649
CRL.P No. 3118/2024
C/W CRL.P No.2879/2024
(BY SRI G.S. VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SAMPIGEHALLI POLICE STATION
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI DHEERAJ SWAROOP
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O SRI. BHARATH LAL.
3. SMT. RICHA DAS
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
W/O MR. DHEERAJ SWAROOP.
NO.2 & 3 RESIDING AT NO.763
IRIS-1, CLOVES AGRO POLICE
VIMANANAGAR, PUNE - 411 014.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R-1)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
FIR AND COMPLAINT LODGED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN
CR.NO.104/2024 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE i.e.,
SAMPIGEHALLI POLICE STATION, SAMPIGEHALLI, BENGALURU FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 406, 120B R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON
THE FILE OF IV ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B
RESPECTIVELY.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. These two petitions are filed with a prayer to quash the
entire proceedings in Crime No.167/2024 and Crime
No.104/2024 registered by Sampigehalli Police Station,
Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 420,
NC: 2024:KHC:13649
406, 120B, 34 IPC against the petitioners herein, pending
before the Court of IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the
learned HCGP for the respondent.
3. FIR in Crime No.167/2024 was registered by Sampigehalli
Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the aforesaid offences
against the petitioners and others on the basis of the first
information dated 16.03.2024 received from Amjad Khan S/o
Israr Ahmed Khan. FIR in Crime No.104/2024 was registered
by Sampigehalli Police Station, Bengaluru City, on the basis of
the first information received on 16.02.2024 from Dhiraj
Swarup S/o Bharat Bhal.
4. The allegations made in both the first information is that
the first informant had paid huge money to the petitioners
herein who are the partners of M/s. Unishire Homes L.L.P.
Company, towards purchase of apartment in an under
construction project. Since the petitioners were facing serious
financial difficulties, they had handed over the project to M/s.
S.A.Enterprises represented by Abdul Latheef Jabbar. After
NC: 2024:KHC:13649
construction of the apartment building was completed, the
apartment for which the first informants had paid huge advance
sale consideration was sold to a third party through registered
sale deeds, for which the petitioners herein and the aforesaid
Abdul Latheef Jabbar are parties. It is in this background, the
first informants had approached the police. Being aggrieved by
the criminal proceedings registered on the basis of the first
information submitted by respondent no.2, petitioners are
before this Court.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the
grounds urged in the petition submits that the dispute is civil in
nature. The allegation is that of violation of the contract.
Respondent no.2 instead of approaching the civil court, has
initiated criminal proceedings only with an intention to coerce
and harass the petitioners. He submits that in identical
circumstances, this Court in Crl.P.No.2874/2024 which was
filed by the petitioners, has granted interim order.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition. She
submits that the petitioners have received 90% of the sale
consideration under an agreement from respondent no.2 in
NC: 2024:KHC:13649
Crl.P.No.3118/2024 and from respondent no.2 in
Crl.P.No.2879/2024, petitioners have received a sum of
Rs.64,60,000/- out of the sale consideration of Rs.67,08,380/-.
In both the cases, petitioners have received 90% of the sale
consideration from the intending purchasers and sale
agreement was also executed in their favour. Subsequently,
petitioners have connived with accused nos.1 to 3 and have
executed sale deeds in favour of third parties in respect of the
apartments which were subject matter of the sale agreements
executed in favour of the respondent no.2-first informants. She
submits that in addition to these cases, several other cases of
similar nature are also registered against the petitioners.
Investigation in the case is under progress. Accordingly, she
prays to dismiss the petitions.
7. From a perusal of the material available on record, it is
seen that the petitioners who are partners of M/s. Unishire
Homes L.L.P. Company, have received 90% of the sale
consideration under two separate sale agreements from the
first informants. Subsequently, the under construction project
was handed over by the petitioners to M/s. S.A.Enterprises,
who inturn has completed the project. The petitioners herein
NC: 2024:KHC:13649
who had entered into an agreement for sale of apartments in
favour of first informants, have joined hands with M/s.
S.A.Enterprises who is also arrayed as an accused in the FIR
and have executed sale deeds in respect of the apartment
which was the subject matter of sale agreements, in favour of
third party after receiving sale consideration from the third
party.
8. Learned HCGP has brought to the notice of this Court
several other similar cases have been registered against the
petitioners herein and similar modus operandi is found in all the
cases. FIR has been registered in the present two cases against
the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420,
406, 120B, 34 IPC. Petitioners who have received 90% of sale
consideration from the intending purchasers who are the first
informants in the present case, have joined hands with the
other accused persons and have sold the property for which
they had received advance consideration in favour of third
parties by executing sale deeds.
9. Petitioners who had received advance sale consideration
from the first informants under the sale agreements, have
NC: 2024:KHC:13649
dishonestly misappropriated the amount received and have
dishonestly disposed of the property which was the subject
matter of the sale agreements. The first informants had paid
advance sale consideration to the petitioners herein since the
petitioners had assured that they would sell the property which
is the subject matter of sale agreements in their favour. The
material on record would also go to show that the petitioners
and the other accused have created sale deeds in favour of
third parties in similar manner after receiving huge sale
consideration from many others and several similar other
criminal cases are registered against the accused before the
very same police station. The allegations found in the first
information has the necessary ingredients for invoking the
alleged offences against the petitioners herein. It cannot be
said that there is absolutely no material as against the
petitioners for prosecuting them for the alleged offences.
10. In Crl.P.No.2874/2024, since it was found that advance
sale consideration was received by M/s. S.A.Enterprises
represented by Abdul Latheef Jabbar and the petitioners herein
had not received any sale consideration from the first informant
in the said case, this Court has granted an interim order in
NC: 2024:KHC:13649
favour of the petitioners. However, in the present case, it is the
petitioners who have received 90% advance sale consideration
from the first informants, and therefore, the reasons assigned
by this Court in Crl.P.No.2874/2024 while granting the interim
order cannot be applicable to the facts of this case.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SANAPAREDDY
MAHEEDHAR SESHAGIRI VS STATE OF A.P. - (2007)13 SCC
165, at paragraph 31, has observed as under:
"31. A careful reading of the above noted
judgments makes it clear that the High Court should be
extremely cautious and slow to interfere with the
investigation and/or trial of criminal cases and should
not stall the investigation and/or prosecution except
when it is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that
the FIR does not disclose commission of any offence or
that the allegations contained in the FIR do not
constitute any cognizable offence or that the
prosecution is barred by law or the High Court is
convinced that it is necessary to interfere to prevent
abuse of the process of the court. In dealing with such
cases, the High Court has to bear in mind that judicial
intervention at the threshold of the legal process
initiated against a person accused of committing offence
is highly detrimental to the larger public and societal
interest. The people and the society have a legitimate
expectation that those committing offences either
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13649
against an individual or the society are expeditiously
brought to trial and, if found guilty, adequately
punished. Therefore, while deciding a petition filed for
quashing the FIR or complaint or restraining the
competent authority from investigating the allegations
contained in the FIR or complaint or for stalling the trial
of the case, the High Court should be extremely careful
and circumspect. If the allegations contained in the FIR
or complaint discloses commission of some crime, then
the High Court must keep its hands off and allow the
investigating agency to complete the investigation
without any fetter and also refrain from passing order
which may impede the trial. The High Court should not
go into the merits and demerits of the allegations
simply because the petitioner alleges malus animus
against the author of the FIR or the complainant. The
High Court must also refrain from making imaginary
journey in the realm of possible harassment which may
be caused to the petitioner on account of investigation
of the FIR or complaint. Such a course will result in
miscarriage of justice and would encourage those
accused of committing crimes to repeat the same.
However, if the High Court is satisfied that the
complaint does not disclose commission of any offence
or prosecution is barred by limitation or that the
proceedings of criminal case would result in failure of
justice, then it may exercise inherent power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C."
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13649
12. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the
prayer made by the petitioners to quash the FIR cannot be
granted. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KK
