K. DASARATHA NAGENDRA PRASAD S/O MR. K. DASARATHA RAMAIAH BEHIND CORPORATION BANK, B.B. ROAD, VIJAYAPURA CROSS, DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562110 Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE DEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION DEVANAHALLI SU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. have common prayer i.e., to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No. 8/2012 and the order of the trial court directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The petitioners in Crl. P. No. 1821/2012 are A -7 and A -8, the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 2170/2012 is A -2, and the petitioners in Crl. P. No. 2298/2012 are A -1 and A -3 in the private complaint that is filed by R -2 Defence Employees Welfare Society ('the Society' for short). Therefore, these petitions are disposed of by this common order. The private complaint filed by R -2 Society herein led to the court below ordering investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and in the complaint, the aforementioned society alleged commission of the offences under Sections 120 -B, 405, 406, 415, 417, 420, 423, 425, 426 read with 34 of the I.P.C. against the 14 accused persons named in the complaint. The basis for the said offences being alleged against the accused petitioners in short is that, the society had entered into an agreement with the developer in respect of acquiring sites in a layout known as "Rakshapuram Layout" for the purpose of allotting sites to the members of the society and most of the members belonged to the defence having served in various capacities and the other members being the family members of the defence personnel.

(2.) IT is the case of the complainant -society that to provide sites to the defence persons and other members of their family, the society wanted to buy lands for allotting sites to 716 members, who had applied for the site allotment. Pursuant to the agreement entered into with A -1 and A -2, with the help of A -7 and the other accused also playing different roles like facilitators, developers, etc, several agreements were entered into and consequent to these agreements, A -1 came forward to take over the project and assured the society that the society would be handed over the sites after development. It was also the case of the complainant society that A -7 was released from the project and A -1 took over the entire responsibility and liability of delivering the developed sites to the members of the society.

(3.) ANOTHER contravention is that, though the price agreed was at Rs. 250/ - per sq. ft., it was increased to Rs. 700/ - per sq. ft. and it is also alleged in the complaint by referring to the table that is mentioned in paragraph -24 that the accused persons, contrary to the terms agreed to in the agreement, had sold sites to different persons without the said sites being approved by the society or channelizing the allotment through the society. Khathas were also effected in favour of the persons other than the members of the society despite the agreement making it clear that the sites to be acquired are meant only for the members of the society.