Karnataka High Court
Mathikere Jayaram Shantaram vs State By Inspector Of Police on 28 September, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION No.2086/2018 (GM - RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MATHIKERE JAYARAM SHANTARAM,
S/O DR.M.R.JAYARAM,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
DIRECTOR, UNITECH VALDEL
VALMARK PVT LTD.,
R/O GOKULA HOUSE,
GOKULA EXTENSION, NEW BEL ROAD,
MATHIKERE, BENGALURU - 560 054.
2. RATAN LATH,
S/O BABULAL LATH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
DIRECTOR, UNITECH VALDEL
VALMARK PVT. LTD.,
R/O NO.22, GOLDEN ENCLAVE,
OLD AIRPORT ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 017.
3. JAIDEEP SINGH,
S/O NARINDU SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
DIRECTOR, UNITECH VALDEL
VALMARK PVT. LTD.,
R/O NO.24, 1ST STREET,
SHANTINIKETAN,
NEW DELHI - 110 021.
4. AJAYA CHANDRA,
S/O RAMESH CHANDRA,
2
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
DIRECTOR, UNITECH VALDEL
VALMRAK PVT LTD.,
R/O NO.C-41, MAYFAIR GARDENS,
NEW DELHI - 110 016.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT.FARAH FATHIMA, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT,
POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. VENKATASUBRAMANIUM,
S/O RAMAKRISHNAN,
AGED MAJOR,
R/O NO.21, BINDU ANMOL APARTMENTS,
AMARJYOTHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.THEJESH.P., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI.K.R.KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ
WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE
COMPLAINT DATED 27.04.2017 IN CRIME NO.0272/2017
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU VIDE
ANNEXURE - A AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The second respondent lodged the FIR alleging that the Unitech Valdel Valmark Pvt. Ltd., intended to construct a commercial complex in Sy.No.41 measuring 3.98 acres and the petitioners/accused who are directors of the said company induced the second respondent to invest in the said project stating that he would be allotted a shop in the said complex and in lieu of the same collected a sum of Rs.71,09,500/- and after having collected the said amount, the petitioners have conveyed the said shop and also the project in favour of the 3rd party and by not returning the said amount received have committed offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406 and 420 of IPC. Taking exception of the same, this writ petition is filed.
2. Sri.Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner's counsel submits that the dispute between the parties arises out of alleged breach of contract, however, given a criminal texture with an ulterior motive to pressurize the petitioners to arrive at a settlement. Hence, he submits that if the petitioners are 4 subjected for further investigation, it would be an abuse of process of law. He further submits that the petitioners are willing to return the amount to the Respondent No.2 and has handed over two demand drafts dated 26.09.2022 bearing Nos.021576 and 006556 for a sum of Rs.1,10,69,704/- and Rs. 17,11,038/- respectively (Rs.1,34,21,000/-) is drawn in favour of the second respondent to the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the petitioners having collected a sum of Rs.71,09,500/- promising to allot a shop in the commercial complex have conveyed the subject shop and also the commercial complex in favour of the third party and by not returning the said amount have committed the aforesaid offences. However, acknowledges the receipt of the two demand drafts drawn in favour of the second respondent.
4. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
5
5. The dispute between the parties arises out of an alleged breach of agreement whereby the petitioners had agreed to allot a shop in the commercial complex for a sum of Rs.71,09,500/-, the amount of which was received by the petitioners and the inaction of the Petitioners in not handing over the shop or by returning the amount received. The Petitioners contention is that the project in question could not be implemented due financial constraint and in such circumstances the petitioners could not hand over the shop which was promised to the Respondent No.2 under the agreement.
6. The dispute between the parties arises purely out of alleged breach of agreement/contract, however, given a criminal texture. Hence, continuation of the investigation against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed.6
ii. The impugned FIR in Cr.No.0272/2017 registered by the Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station, is hereby quashed.
iii. Liberty is reserved with the second respondent to approach the appropriate forum for claiming interest/ higher interest and damages and compensation, if he is otherwise entitled to in terms of the agreement.
This order will not come in the way of the Arbitrator concerned in adjudicating the claim of the second respondent for higher interest including damages and compensation and the Arbitrator is at liberty to adjudicate the same independently on the available material on record.
All contentions are kept open.
Sd/-
JUDGE RKA