NITESH SHETTY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have sought to quash the FIR registered against them in Crime No.46/2020 by Halasur Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 406 , 420 and 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Given a brief account of the events that have led to this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being filed, they are as follows : -

(2.) The second respondent entered into an agreement on 18.7.2012 with a company called Nitesh Housing Developers Private Limited ('the company' for short) to purchase an apartment, A-905 in the latter's project Nitesh Columbus Square. The petitioners received an amount of Rs.62,22,000/- from the second respondent and failed to deliver possession of the apartment to her before August 2014 as agreed, and therefore the second respondent made a complaint to the Real Estate Regulatory Authority ('RERA' for short). The Adjudicating Officer appointed under Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act , 2016 ('the Act' for short), passed an order on 9.4.2019 directing the company to return Rs.62,21,879/- with interest and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceeding before him. Pursuant to this order, on 2.8.2019, the second respondent and the company entered into a memorandum of settlement according to which the company agreed to return a sum of Rs.62,23,640/- and a further sum of Rs.32,76,360/- being the compensation amount after deducting Rs.3,27,636/- towards income tax. The company issued a post dated cheque for Rs.91,72,188/- to the second respondent, perhaps as an assurance to transfer the sum through RTGS to the second respondent's bank account on or before 1.12.2019, and in which event the second respondent should return the post dated cheque to the company. It appears the company failed to transfer money to the second respondent's bank account even after she extended the time for making payment; therefore she presented the cheque before her bank on 16.1.2020 for encashing it. As the company had blocked its bank account, the cheque was not honoured and then the second respondent initiated a proceeding under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The second respondent also lodged a complaint against the petitioners with the first respondent police who registered an FIR in Crime No. 46/2020 for the offences punishable under sections 406 , 420 , 506 read with section 34 IPC. The petitioners want this FIR to be quashed.

(3.) I have heard the arguments of Sri.M.S.Shyam Sundar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri L.P.E.Rego, learned counsel for second respondent. Sri Shyam Sundar has also submitted his written arguments.