Authority: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
Order Date: 9 October 2026
Case Overview
- Petitioners: K.H. Khan (aged ~67), Shaheda Begum (aged ~63) and Karar Ahmed (aged ~63), residing at No.26 (Old No.425), 9th Cross, Jayanagar 2nd Block, Bengaluru‑560011 and No.50, 8th Main 2nd Cross, Roshan Colony, Tilak Nagar, Bengaluru‑560011 respectively.
- Respondents: The State of Karnataka represented by Kengeri Police Station, Bengaluru (through the State Public Prosecutor, High Court Complex, Bengaluru‑560001) and K. Channappa (aged ~64) of No.1250/15/5 Kanchana Nilaya, 1st Main Road, 1st Cross, Kengeri Upanagara, Bengaluru‑560060.
- Petition: Criminal Petition No.4986 of 2019 filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking quash of the entire proceedings in C.C. No.8921/2019 (Crime No.11/2018) registered by Kengeri Police Station for alleged offences punishable under IPC Sections 406, 420 and 120‑B read with Section 149.
- Background: Respondent No.2 (a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police) alleged that his daughter, Dr. Deepa C.V., and son‑in‑law, Dr. Nandakishor, visited the Kengeri site on 6 June 2011, observed an advertisement board (Arena No.134/5) and a demo house, and subsequently paid Rs.1,02,575 by cheque to M/s. Era Land Mark Limited for a flat under a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with the petitioners. A welcome letter dated 25 June 2011 fixed the rate at Rs.2,400 per sq ft and allotted a flat. On 5 January 2012 a demand letter sought Rs.6,39,253; the daughter paid Rs.6,04,640 plus service tax by SBI cheque.
- Allegations: The complainant claimed the sales executive, Prasanna, assured senior officer signatures which were never obtained; the site office was later found closed, with only security guards present. It was alleged that Era Land Mark Ltd (later renamed) and Upkar Developers collected crores from the public, stopped civil works, and cheated purchasers.
- Petitioners’ Contentions: They asserted ownership of the land in Kengeri Village and that a JDA with Era Developers (Delhi‑based) was executed on 5 July 2008, accompanied by a General Power of Attorney (POA) on the same day and an Addendum on 28 October 2009. On 25 January 2010 Era Developers assigned the agreement to Parinda Buildcon Private Limited. Petitioners did not execute a POA in favour of Parinda. They issued a legal notice on 14 July 2010 demanding repayment of a HUDCO loan of Rs.14.50 crores; the developers failed to comply, leading to cancellation of the JDA and POA (termination notices dated 17 February 2012 and 22 February 2012, published in newspapers). They claimed no personal knowledge of any receipt of money from the complainant and that the charge‑sheet against them was unwarranted.
- State’s Counter‑Contention: The Additional SPP argued that the JDA and POA vested full authority in the developers, under which the complainant’s payments were made. Cancellation of the agreement after the payments does not negate the developers’ right to collect money, and the police investigation and charge‑sheet were proper.
- Court Findings: The Court observed that:
- The petitioners are undisputed owners of the land and executed the JDA, POA and Addendum on the dates mentioned.
- The complainant’s payments (Rs.1,02,575 on 6 June 2011; Rs.6,04,640 on 5 January 2012) were made pursuant to the JDA/POA before any cancellation notice.
- The developers, having been authorised by the JDA/POA, were entitled to collect the amounts; the police investigation and charge‑sheet were therefore not erroneous.
- Any dispute between the land owners (petitioners) and the developers is an inter‑se matter and does not affect the complainant’s rights or the criminal liability of the developers.
- Consequently, the petition to quash the criminal proceedings cannot be entertained and the matter must proceed to trial.
Final Outcome
- The criminal petition is dismissed. The criminal case (C.C. No.8921/2019) remains pending before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
Topics: Legal Proceedings, Real Estate Fraud