The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed the first information report (FIR) and all criminal proceedings against four Bengaluru landowners accused of cheating and conspiracy in relation to a 2015 land transaction [SN Vijayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka].

However, it recorded serious concerns over how statutory authorities like Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) colluded with private parties and facilitated the return of acquired land to private hands through a sequence of events that had “compromised” public interest.

“Though the Court has allowed the present appeal, the judicial conscience of the Court is ill at ease. The interest of the common citizens, especially of Bengaluru, has been compromised due to various extraneous considerations, including by acts of omission and commission by statutory bodies,” the Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said.

The FIR, registered at Sanjay Nagar Police Station on October 5, 2023, was based on a private complaint by one Keerthiraj Shetty.

On November 30, 2015, Shetty had entered into an agreement to sell (ATS) 6 acres of land in Bhoopasandra village, Bangalore North with the accused persons.

The complainant alleged that although the accused received a substantial sum of money and executed a general power of attorney, they later revoked it and transferred the land internally without executing a sale deed in his favour.

The police filed a chargesheet on August 28, 2024 under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC. Cognizance was taken by the magistrate on August 30, 2024. The Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition to quash the FIR, prompting the present appeal.

The Supreme Court found that none of the offences alleged in the FIR were made out.

On criminal breach of trust under Section 406, the Court held that the subject property belonged to the accused and they had rights over it as owners with title.

"Thus, the very foundation for invoking Section 406 falls to the ground,” the Court stated.

On the charge of cheating under Section 420, the Court said there was no dishonest inducement at the inception of the transaction. It noted that the complainant himself alleged that “after the increase in the market value of the said property, the accused started cheating,” and that this militates against any claim of inducement at the inception or harbouring of a dishonest intention.

“We do not find any criminal aspect in the allegations ex-facie,” the Court concluded holding that the criminal proceedings constituted an abuse of process.

The FIR, chargesheet and cognizance order were all quashed.

Although one of the co-accused had not filed an appeal, the Court extended the benefit of quashing to her as well, stating that all the accused stand on the same footing.

While disposing of the appeal, the Court examined the background of the land dispute and flagged irregularities in how the land had come back into private ownership.

The property had been acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority in 1978 and 1982. A de-notification issued in 1992 was challenged and quashed in 1996.

The Supreme Court upheld the quashing of the de-notification in 2015. Despite this, the present appellants filed fresh writ petitions in 2015 claiming that the acquisition had lapsed. These were allowed by a single judge of the High Court in February 2016.

The BDA, after filing intra-court appeals, later withdrew them.

The Supreme Court described the course of events as deeply troubling.

“Thereafter, the action of the BDA in not pursuing the appeal(s) filed by itself, is the second phase where the course of justice was thwarted. We have no hesitation in saying so, what could only be termed as collusive litigation between the BDA and the appellants," the judgment said.

The Court considered invoking Article 142 to revisit the 2016 High Court orders but decided against it as the BDA has already filed an appeal before the top court.

It directed that until that matter is decided in the pending appeal, no third-party rights shall be created or given effect to with respect to the subject property.

Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Shoeb Alam along with Advocates Anil C Nishani, P Prasanna Kumar, Meenesh Dubey, Krishna M Singh, Amit Bhandari, Vishwesh R Murnal and Gaurav Chavan, instructed by M/s Krishna & Nishani Law Chambers, appeared for the petitioners.

For the respondents, Advocates Mahesh Thakur, Geetanjali Bedi, Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Vedika Singh and DL Chidananda appeared.

[Read Judgment]