MANISHA PRASHANT MEHTA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C praying this court to quash the FIR in Cr.No. 195/2020 on the file of IV Additional CMM, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 409 and 384 of IPC, sections 38, 39, 40, 5 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act and section 4 of the Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 has filed the complaint before the respondent No.1 on 20.8.2020 making the allegations against the petitioners that the complainant is the authorized representative of M/s Sanchaya Land and Estate Private Limited, a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act and carrying out the business of project development and construction. The complainant was authorized to prefer the present complaint. It is alleged in the complaint that accused Nos. 1 and 3 who are husband and wife are Directors of accused No.5 which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The accused persons claim to be in the business of unofficial financing among other things and are on the look out for soft targets to lend money and in turn usurp their immovable properties by charging illegal interest rates, which can never be repaid. The said accused persons were introduced by one Rajiv Gupta, finance facilitator, befriended personnel of the said company and in August 2019 misled the complainant into taking a business loan in a sum of Rs.75,00,000/-. The said money was received via cheque payments and Rajiv Gupta received commission. The accused persons dishonestly and fraudulently deceived the complainant with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the company and wrongful gain to themselves, into accepting, that since they do not have a money lenders licence and would be charging high interest rate at 2% per month till repayment of the principal amount of the loan advanced, they should instead of executing an MOU for the said loan, secure the loan amount by ostensibly transferring sale deeds of 6 flats/properties bearing Nos. 102, 503, 601, 602, 701, 801 in Maple Blocks which form part of the said company's project at Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, in the name of accused No.1 during August 2019. The accused insisted that they have to execute sale deeds at circle value instead of market value, as the same was only a formality to secure the loan advanced and therefore despite the cumulative consideration amount for the 6 flats being Rs.1,05,75,000/-, Rs.30,75,000/- was returned. They were further misled into executing bogus rent agreements during the same period, to secure in favour of the accused the 2% per monthly interest amount ostensibly payable as rent initially for 11 months which agreements would extend indefinitely, till the principal amount is not paid. It was agreed that on payment of principal amount, the sale and rent documents executed in August 2019 would be cancelled. It is also the allegation that on 26.2.2020 accused No.3 misled the said company i.e., taking into a business loan in a sum of Rs.2,24,10,080/-. The said money was received via cheque payments from accused No.2's personal account. Hence, in the complaint the complainant sought to take action against the accused on the ground that they dishonestly and fraudulently deceived the complainant with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the company and wrongful gain to themselves to secure the loan amount. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case and investigated the matter and consequent upon the registration of FIR based on the complaint, petitioners are before this court.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that in view of the understanding between the parties, respondent No.2 is the developer who developed the project agreed to sell 6 flats in favour of petitioner No.1 and 20 flats in favour of petitioner No.2 and 30 flats in favour of petitioner No.3. In this connection, sale agreement was also executed and subsequently, sale deed was also executed. There is an arbitration clause in the sale deed and sale agreement that if any dispute arises between the parties, the same has to be settled by arbitration. It is also contended by the counsel for the petitioners that there is a rental agreement. However, there is no any arbitration clause with regard to any dispute arising between the parties regarding rental. He has approached the appropriate forum for the said relief. Counsel would vehemently contend that having taken note of the contents in the complaint, police cannot decide in investigation with regard to the nature of the documents which are in existence between the parties. Counsel also brought to the notice of this court the provision made in the agreement to sell, i.e., clause No.33 in respect of the property which they agreed and also brought to the notice of this court copy of the sale deed and the arbitration clause providing that if any dispute arises, the parties have to settle the same through arbitration. Counsel also would contend that already arbitration proceedings are initiated against respondent No.2. The dispute between the parties is of civil in nature and the same has to be decided in a civil court and not in criminal proceedings. Hence, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be leading to miscarriage of justice and it requires interference by this court.