Mrs Veronica Mary Machado v. The State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA WRIT PETITION NO.5062 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

¶1MRS.VERONICA MARY MACHADO W/O MR DONAT LOUIS MACHADO, AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS, CANOPY CREST IRS, KOGILU MAIN ROAD, MARUTHINAGARA, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU, BENGALURU CITY KARNATAKA,

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT APARTMENT NO.101, 'CASA BLANCA', NO.35, NORRIS ROAD, RICHMOND TOWN, BENGALURU-560 025

¶2MR ALBEN REYNOLD MACHADO S/O MR DONAT LOUIS MACHADO, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, CANOPY CREST IRS, KOGILU MAIN ROAD, 'MARUTHINAGARA, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU, BENGALURU CITY KARNATAKA.

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT APARTMENT NO.101, 'CASA BLANCA', NO.35/4, NORRIS ROAD, RICHMOND TOWN, BENGALURU-560025

THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY THEIR GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. NEIL MACHADO

¶3MR VINCENT LAWRENCE MACHADO S/O MR DONAT LOUIS MACHADO, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, CANOPY CREST IRS, KOGILU MAIN ROAD, MARUTHINAGARA, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT RAINTREE HALL, FLAT I B, 1ST FLOOR, RHENIUS STREET, RICHMOND TOWN, BENGALURU-560 025

¶4MR NEIL MACHADO S/O MR DONAT LOUIS MACHADO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, CANOPY CREST IRS, KOGILU MAIN ROAD, MARUTHINAGARA, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT APARTMENT NO.101, 'CASA BLANCA', NO.35, NORRIS ROAD, RICHMOND TOWN, BENGALURU-560 025 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI AJESH KUMAR S, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, YELAHANKA POLICE STATION, NO.2361, YELAHANKA OLD TOWN, BENGALURU-560 064

REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU.

¶2SRI PRAKASH H ADNUR S/O HUCHHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.07, 1ST A MAIN, 2ND A CROSS, DOLLARS COLONY, ASHWATHANAGARA, RMV 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 094 …RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.WAHEEDA.M.M, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1; SRI ASHOK NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2 –ABSENT)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED BY R1 IN CRIME NO.0026/2022 DATED

26.01.2022 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 34, 120B, 420, 465, 468 AND 471 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY R2 PENDING ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE 37TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Ajesh Kumar S, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Waheeda M.M. learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. Sri Ashok Naik, learned counsel for respondent No.2 is absent.

¶2Present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the following prayer: "Quash the FIR registered by respondent No.1 in Crime No.0026/2022 dated 26.01.2022 for the alleged offences under Section 34, 120B, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code on the basis of the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 pending adjudication before the 37th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru against the petitioners as per Annexure-A."

¶3Petitioners are the accused persons named in the First Information Report bearing No.0026/2022 registered by Yelahanka Police, Bengaluru City.

¶4Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that the petitioners are the owners of the land bearing Survey No.34/9

of Kogilu village, Yelahanka, Bengaluru, measuring 3 acres 12 guntas. There was a joint Development Agreement entered into by the petitioners with M/s Canopy Estates (P) Ltd. for development of the said land.

¶5The Managing Directors viz., Syed Yasir Rizvi and Salma Rizvi representing M/s Canopy Estates P. Ltd., constructed few flats which is first phase. Later on, they did not abide by the terms of the Joint Development Agreement. A civil suit is already filed in this regard by the present petitioners against the developers.

¶6In the meantime, there is also a loan obtained by the developers, viz., M/s Canopy Estates P. Ltd., from Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank) , Bilekahalli Branch, based on the alleged title deeds of the property whereby there is now an action that is sought to be initiated for recovery of money by the Bank including the flats which are purchased by the people like complainant.

¶7It is the case of the present petitioners that they are in fact victims in the incident and they have already taken

necessary civil action for the loss suffered by them in respect of the Joint Development Agreement.

¶8It is further case of the petitioners that not a single paisa has been obtained by them from Bank of Baroda, Bilekahalli Branch, inasmuch as, the petitioners are not the borrowers or the guarantors to the loan transaction.

¶9In other words, it is the contention of the petitioners that suppressing the material fact and by creating some documents if M/s Canopy Estates P. Ltd. has obtained the loan, it is the Directors of the said Company who are to be responsible for the Criminal Act and not the present petitioners.

¶10Sri Ajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners would further contend the FIR may be quashed against the petitioners for the time being. If the investigation agency finds any material against the present petitioners during the course of investigation which would prima facie establish that the present petitioners are also involved in the alleged fraud, then petitioners may be arraigned as accused persons while filing

the final report despite the fact of quashing of the present FIR against them.

¶11Per contra, Smt.Waheeda, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that prima facie materials are found in the complaint itself that present petitioners in utter collusion with M/s Canopy Estates P. Ltd. and its Directors along with the bank officials created documents whereby the sale deed executed by M/s Canopy Estates P. Ltd. in favour of the complainant and similarly placed flat owners is at jeopardy. Therefore, FIR cannot be quashed and petitioners can very well appear before the investigation agency and place such material to establish their innocence.

¶12Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court noted that the Joint Development Agreement entered into by the petitioners with M/s Canopy Estates P. Ltd. is not in dispute. Likewise, the project being abandoned midway is also not in dispute.

¶13As such, present petitioners who are the landowners did not get their share in the property, i.e., the built up flats. In

that regard there is already a civil suit pending. Complainant is none other than the purchaser of a flat.

¶14If any fraud has taken place with regard to the pledging of the title deeds by creating documents by M/s Canopy Estates P. Ltd. with Bank of Baroda, Bilekahalli Branch, the Investigation Officer is at liberty to investigate the same and if any semblance of involvement of the present petitioners is found, then the petitioners can be arraigned as accused persons while filing the final report despite the fact that this Court is quashing the FIR, insofar as the present petitioners are concerned.

¶15A memo is filed in this regard by Sri Ajesh Kumar, which reads as under: "The advocate for thepetitioners submits that in the even there is sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners the respondent can always arrayn the petitioners as an accused (additional).

Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to take the memo

on record and pass such order and further order in the interest of justice and equity."

¶16Thus, placing the memo on record, continuation of the case as against the petitioners at this stage is no longer warranted and would result in abuse of process of law inasmuch as, petitioners themselves are victims in the very same incident.

¶17As such, the following: ORDER i. Placing the memo filed on behalf of the petitioners on record petition stands allowed.

ii. Pending FIR in Crime No.0026/2022 registered by Yelahanka Police, Bengaluru City, is hereby quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

iii. It is made clear that quashing of the FIR as against the present petitioners would not come in the way for the Investigation Officer to file charge sheet, if any incriminating materials are found during the course of investigation of the case in respect of other accused.

iv. It is further made clear that the petitioners shall co-operate with the Investigation Agency in all respects.

v. The petitioners are also reserved the liberty, if any adverse report is filed against them, to challenge the same, in accordance with law.

Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

kcm List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3 CT:VR