Dr. Lakshman vs The State Of Karnataka

4. The first complaint dated 29th April, 2013 was filed alleging that the respondents-accused made a representation that they are owners and are absolutely seized and possessed of land at Ballur village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk and promised to procure an extent of 70 acres of land and entered into an agreement with the appellant-complainant on 26th September, 2012 and received an amount of Rs.9 crores (Rupees Nine crores) by way of cheques and demand drafts. It is alleged that the extent and survey nos. of land mentioned in the Schedule appended to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) were to be procured in favour of the complainant. It was further pleaded that there were two cheques issued by the accused as security for the amount of advance paid by the appellant-complainant. It was the case of the complainant that subsequent to agreement dated 26th September, 2012, the respondents-accused having failed to perform the contract in terms of agreement, have entered into another MOU on 8th November, 2012, representing that they are in possession of 70 acres of agricultural land and 30 acres of converted land and they promised to transfer such land in favour of the appellant. To the MOU dated 8th 3 Crl.A.@ SLP(Crl.)Nos.6115-6117/2017 November, 2012 M/s. Sri Sai Developers was added as a party. As per the complaint, there is also a Schedule indicating the survey nos. and extent of lands to the second MOU. In the complaint filed on 29th April, 2013 it was alleged that though the respondents have already sold the land covered by Survey Nos.115 and 117 to M/s. Sri Sai Developers on 7th June, 2012, with a dishonest intention respondents have played fraud and cheated the appellant by receiving huge sum of Rs.9 Crores (Rupees Nine crores), by including the lands covered by Survey Nos.115 and 117 also. Further alleging that when the demand was made to comply with the terms of the contract, the respondents have threatened the complainant, as such the respondents are liable to be punished for offences under Sections 403, 406, 420, 506(B) of IPC.

5. Further alleging that after filing of the first criminal complaint, the respondents have threatened and pressurised the appellant and the second complaint was filed. In the second complaint, it was alleged that one of the accused, by name, D.C. Thamanna also gave an undertaking in writing stating that from 16th May, 2013 onwards they 4 Crl.A.@ SLP(Crl.)Nos.6115-6117/2017 would start registering the sale deeds but they failed to do so. It was further alleged that instead of abiding by such undertaking, the appellant was forced to enter into an addendum dated 30th May 2013. In the second complaint, it is alleged that all the accused have told the appellant that lands bearing Survey Nos.115 and 117 are not available for sale, as such they will compensate in other lands and made a request to become confirming party to sale deed dated 6.7.2013 executed in favour of the trust. It is stated in the complaint that though the purchaser of the lands covered by Survey nos.115 and 117 was not known to the appellant, he was made to sign the sale deed as a confirming party which is also a conspiracy of all the accused to avoid performance of the contract entered into by the accused with the appellant and to retain the amount of Rs.9 crores (Rupees Nine crores) with them illegally. In the second complaint, it was further the case of the appellant that when the cheques, which were given by the accused as security, were presented, it was learnt that the account of which cheques were issued was closed even prior to entering into the agreement dated 26.9.2012. Alleging that there is a fraud, 5 Crl.A.@ SLP(Crl.)Nos.6115-6117/2017 cheating and conspiracy, it is pleaded that the respondents are liable to be prosecuted for the offences under Sections 417, 418, 420, 422 and 120(B) read with Section 34, IPC and the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the High Court has committed an error in allowing the petitions filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. by the respondents-accused. Accordingly, these criminal appeals are allowed and impugned common order dated 28.4.2017 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru is set aside. It is made clear that the findings recorded in this judgment are confined only for 3 2007 (12) Scale 15 11 Crl.A.@ SLP(Crl.)Nos.6115-6117/2017 these appeals and the same cannot be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the matter and it is open for the trial court to proceed in accordance with law and decide the complaints on their own merits.

[R. Subhash Reddy] New Delhi;

October 17, 2019 12