ORDER : (M.G. UMA, J.) The petitioners being accused No.1 – M/s J.P.Golden Homes Properties Pvt. Ltd. (“Developer“ for short) and the Director representing the Developer have filed Crl.P.No.7353/2022 seeking to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.17/2022 of Jayaprakash Nagar Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420 and 12B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“ IPC ” for short) produced as per Annexure- A. 2. Accused Nos.2 to 5 in Crime No.17/2022 of Jayaprakash Nagar Police Station have filed Crl.P.No.3722/2022 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them as stated above. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 as informant filed the first information before Jayaprakash Nagar Police Station against accused Nos.1 to 5 (petitioners herein) alleging commission of the offences under Sections 406 , 420 and 120B of IPC . The informant alleged that accused Nos.2 to 5 who were working in the State Bank of Mysore, along with others formed the Society by name “the State Bank of Mysore Officers Housing Co-Operative Society Limited” (“the Society” for short) and contacted the informant and others by proclaiming that the Society is developing the land and forming a residential layout in Singarahalli village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, through the Developer represented by its Director B. Kishore Kumar i.e., accused No.1. 4. It is also stated by the accused that they have sought legal opinion from the legal adviser of the State Bank of India regarding the marketability of title to the land who opined that there is marketable title to sell/purchase the sites that could be formed in the layout. Therefore, it was decided that the layout in the name of Sir M.Vishveshwaraiah, who is the founder of State Bank of Mysore, was to be formed. The accused have offered sites at the rate of Rs.550/- per sq.ft., by issuing a Circular under the name of the Society. The said circular was circulated to the various branches of the State Bank of Mysore with an intention to influence the staff members to purchase the sites in question. 5. It is contended that the informant had paid the consideration amount and got the sale deed registered in his favour. The said circular was circulated to the various branches of the State Bank of Mysore with an intention to influence the staff members to purchase the sites in question. 5. It is contended that the informant had paid the consideration amount and got the sale deed registered in his favour. About 320 such employees of the State Bank of Mysore have purchased the sites under various registered sale deeds executed through the Developer at the instance of the Society represented by the accused. 6. It is stated by the informant that the accused have promised to develop the layout by obtaining necessary ‘No Objection Certificates’ from various authorities. But even after lapse of several years, the land was not developed. It was brought to the notice of the informant that since the layout is very near to Bengaluru International Airport at Devanahalli, the Society and Developer could not get the approval to develop the layout from the Bengaluru International Airport Area Planning Authority (“BIAAPA” for short). It is stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District has passed an order cancelling the order of conversion of the land to residential purpose, which was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura. Therefore, the informant and other members who have purchased the sites could not utilize the same for the purpose for which it was purchased. It is contended by the informant that the accused induced the informant and other members and made to purchase the land for valuable consideration, without obtaining necessary permission and order of conversion and committed cheating, criminal breach of trust by criminally conspiring amongst themselves. Thereby the offence in question was committed between 17.11.2006 to 21.11.2021. Therefore, he requested the police to register the case and to initiate legal action. Accordingly the FIR in Crime No.17/2022 for the aforesaid offences was registered by Jayaprakash Nagar Police Station on 29.01.2022 and the investigation was undertaken. 7. The petitioners being the accused have approached this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 8. Heard Sri. Vivek Subba Reddy, learned Senior Advocate for Sri. Chand Pasha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned AGA along with Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1 and Sri. A.V.Satyanaraya - respondent No.2 - Party-in-person. Perused the materials on Record. 9. 8. Heard Sri. Vivek Subba Reddy, learned Senior Advocate for Sri. Chand Pasha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned AGA along with Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1 and Sri. A.V.Satyanaraya - respondent No.2 - Party-in-person. Perused the materials on Record. 9. In view of the rival contentions urged by both parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is : "Whether the petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 5 have made out any grounds to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" My answer to the above point is in the 'affirmative' for the following; REASONS 10. It is the specific contention of respondent No.2 – informant that he being the retired employee of State Bank of Mysore was induced by accused Nos.2 to 5 who were also the employees of State Bank of Mysore, by forming the Society in question and proclaiming that they have purchased the landed property situated at Singarahalli village, with an intention to develop the same and to from a well equipped layout under the name of Sir M.Vishveshwaraiah, who is the founder of the State Bank of Mysore. Accused No.1 is the Developer of the layout and that an impression was created that necessary orders for conversion of the land into residential purpose was obtained and necessary permission are also obtained for forming the layout. But even after lapse of several years, the land was not developed into a layout. On the other hand, it was found that BIAAPA has not given its approval for forming the layout. In the mean time, the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, passed an order canceling the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur, converting the land into residential purpose. It is stated that the accused criminally conspired together, committed cheating and criminal breach of trust, as a result of which, sites purchased by the informant and others could not be utilized for the purpose for which it was purchased and therefore, sought for initiating criminal proceedings. 11. It is stated that the accused criminally conspired together, committed cheating and criminal breach of trust, as a result of which, sites purchased by the informant and others could not be utilized for the purpose for which it was purchased and therefore, sought for initiating criminal proceedings. 11. The sale deeds produced by the petitioners disclose that accused No.1 as the Director and Developer as the confirming party, B. Jyoty Prasad, B. Kishore Kumar and B.J.Kiran Kumar as venders executed the sale deed dated 28.04.2007 in favour of respondent No.2 – the informant, proclaiming that the venders are the owners in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Site No.B.23, Khatha No.154/173/B-23, which is a part of the convert land and the residential layout developed by the Developer in various survey numbers situated at Singarahalli village, totally measuring 26.19 acres. The sale deed refers to various parent deeds under which the vendors have purchased different extents of lands. It is stated that the vendors are developing the residential layout as per plan submitted before BIAAPA in respect of the said 26.19 acres of land, for the purpose of providing the facilities as per the Norms and Plans of BIAAPA while forming the layout such as, Mettalling, Filling, Asphalting of Roads, Development of Parks, Construction of Storm Water Drain, Underground Drainage, Septic Tank Treatment Plant, Overhead Water Tank, Underground Water Storage Tank, All- round Compound Wall with Entrance Gate and Arch, Club House, Electricity and Water connection etc., and also by identifying the individual sites with boundaries as per the plan, within three months from the date of the sale deed. As per the schedule appended to the sale deed, site bearing No.B-23 situated in Sy.No.21 Katha No.154/173/B-23 measuring 50 X 30 ft. with boundaries mentioned therein was sold in favour of respondent No.2 for valuable consideration of Rs.4,50,000/-. 12. Annexure-A is the FIR, Annexure-B is the first information dated 29.01.2022, Annexure-C is the order sheet of the Trial Court in Crime No.17/2022 of Jayaprakash Nagar Police Station and Annexure-D consist of copies of various sale deeds executed by vendors in favour of the purchasers. 13. 12. Annexure-A is the FIR, Annexure-B is the first information dated 29.01.2022, Annexure-C is the order sheet of the Trial Court in Crime No.17/2022 of Jayaprakash Nagar Police Station and Annexure-D consist of copies of various sale deeds executed by vendors in favour of the purchasers. 13. Annexure-E is the order of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bengaluru (“DRCS” for short) dated 23.02.2021 passed on the complaint submitted against respondent No.2 herein alleging that Sri M. Vishveshwaraiah Enclave Site Owners Welfare Association (“the Association” for short), which is a society formed illegally by respondent No.2 herein along with others alleging that they have furnished concocted and fake proceedings of the meeting said to have been held from 01.04.2018 till 31.03.2020, managed to obtain the approval to constitute the society by furnishing fake addresses. After considering the allegations the DRCS found that the proceedings of the meetings were not genuine, but they were fake documents. The information submitted are also false. Therefore, he approved accused No.4 as the president and accused No.2 as the Secretary of the Society and permitted them to carry on the management of the Society with effect from 23.02.2021. 14. It is the contention of the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 5 in the criminal proceedings that the allegations made in the first information are all false and without any basis. The averments made in the first information do not constitute any criminal offence against the petitioners. 15. The informant does not dispute that the Society purchased 26.19 acres of land situated at Singarahalli village for valuable consideration under various registered sale deeds. He is also not disputing that the revenue records stood in the name of the Society and they have obtained an order of conversion of the land to residential purpose from the Assistant Commissioner and thereafter the land was developed and various sites were formed. It is only thereafter the informant and other employees have purchased the sites at a concessional price under the registered sale deeds that are executed during 2006-07. 16. It is not the case of the informant that the vendor had defective title, but the purchasers including the informant purchased the sites after satisfying about the marketable title of the seller by getting the registered sale deed. 16. It is not the case of the informant that the vendor had defective title, but the purchasers including the informant purchased the sites after satisfying about the marketable title of the seller by getting the registered sale deed. It is not the contention of the informant that the petitioners were having any criminal intent either to cheat or to commit criminal breach of trust at the time of executing the sale deed. 17. Admittedly, the order converting the land into residential purpose was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur. The sale deed in favour of the informant and other purchasers referred to the order of conversion passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur, but unfortunately the same came to be cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District subsequently. The petitioners have not played any role in passing the said order. It is only after lapse of more than 15 years, the Deputy Commissioner has chosen to cancel the order converting the land. No criminal intent could be attributable to the petitioners in passing such order by the Deputy Commissioner. 18. It is to be noticed that the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, passed an order dated 12.11.2021, canceling the order of conversion passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur converting the land into residential purpose, on the ground that there is violation of Condition No.3 in the said conversion order and the said conversion order was passed after 17.09.2004 in violation of the Government order dated 27.01.2009. It is stated that, such an order of conversion was obtained without getting the approval for the proposed layout from BIAAPA. 19. Learned Senior Advocate specifically submitted that the order of Deputy Commissioner canceling the order of conversion was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.1606/2024 along with connected writ petitions. The said writ petitions came to be allowed by a common order dated 26.03.2025 setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and thereby, restoring the order of Assistant Commissioner and according permission to convert the land. This fact is not disputed by respondent No.2. 20. It is contended that the informant has filed first information as there was enmity between two groups of the Association, under which accused Nos.2 to 5 and the informant are claiming authority, as its office bearers. The first information came to be filed with a motive. This fact is not disputed by respondent No.2. 20. It is contended that the informant has filed first information as there was enmity between two groups of the Association, under which accused Nos.2 to 5 and the informant are claiming authority, as its office bearers. The first information came to be filed with a motive. There is inordinate delay in filing the first information, which was filed after lapse of more than 15 years. 21. It is to be noticed that admittedly, there are two groups, one headed by respondent No.2 herein and the informant by name Janardhan in Crime No.77/2022. Prima facie, there are case and counter cases between two groups, which resulted in filing the present complaint. The DRCS by his order dated 23.02.2021 produced as per Annexure-E found that the informant – respondent No.2 has committed fraud and created fake Society trying to hijack the Association. 22. The member Secretary, BIAAPA has given an endorsement dated 25.04.2006 in favour of the Developer informing that the application submitted for approval of the layout plan proposed to be formed in 8.13 acres of land in various survey numbers situated at Singarahalli village was considered by the authority in its meeting held on 17.04.2006 and found that the said layout proposed to be formed is not in accordance with the Norms and therefore the proposal for approval of the layout was rejected. Prima facie, this endorsement was much prior to the sale deed dated 28.04.2007, executed in favour of respondent No.2. 23. As per condition No.3 in the order of conversion passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur, the proposed layout plan with permission etc., would be obtained from Bengaluru Metropolitan Region Development Authority (“BMRDA” for short). 24. The materials on record discloses that there was no suppression of material facts in the registered sale deed dated 28.04.2007 executed in favour of respondent No.2. The title of the vendor to execute the sale deed is never disputed. In other words, it is not the contention of respondent No.2 that there was a defect in title. Even though the Deputy Commissioner had set aside the conversion order passed by the Assistant Commissioner Dhoddaballapura, the said order of Deputy Commissioner has set aside by this Court in W.P.No.1606/2024. In other words, it is not the contention of respondent No.2 that there was a defect in title. Even though the Deputy Commissioner had set aside the conversion order passed by the Assistant Commissioner Dhoddaballapura, the said order of Deputy Commissioner has set aside by this Court in W.P.No.1606/2024. Even though the sale deed is dated 28.04.2007, the endorsement of BIAAPA was dated 25.04.2006, the proceedings before the DRCS referred to above was during 2021, the first information in the present case came to be filed only during January-2022. Even though Section 406 , 420 , 120B of IPC are involved, it is not the contention of respondent No.2 that the petitioners were having criminal intend either to commit criminal breach of trust, cheating, etc., at the time of executing the sale deed. The proceedings of DRCS by accused Nos.2 and 4 against respondent No.2 herein prima facie discloses that there were two fractions in the society, which are trying to overpower the other. The order of DRCS dated 23.02.2021 gave upper hand to accused Nos.2 and 4 that may have led the informant to file the first information subsequently. 25. When respondent No.2 purchased the landed property under the registered sale deed after being satisfied with the title of the vendor along with the order of conversion passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura, now cannot turn around and contend that, the petitioners have committed cheating and criminal breach of trust with criminal conspiracy. Claim made by respondent No.2 over the Society before DRCS assumes importance in considering the allegations made against the petitioners. Registration of the criminal complaint and initiation of criminal proceedings after lapse of 15 years is nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that institution of criminal case and criminal proceedings against the petitioners is in the abuse of process of law. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed. 26. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petitions are allowed. (ii) The FIR registered in Crime No.17/2022 of Jayaprakash Nagar Police Station, on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of IPC, is hereby quashed.