The LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to two individuals, Tejas and Pratibha, in a case involving allegations of forgery and cheating related to a real estate project. The court, presided over by Sri Narashimsa M.V., observed that the dispute appeared to be primarily civil in nature, stemming from ongoing litigation before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority.

The petitioners, Tejas and Pratibha, who are Accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the case, sought protection from arrest under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The case was registered by the Channammanakere Achukattu Police under Crime Number 281/2022 following a complaint by a builder, M. Ramu of M/s R R Enterprises.

The Roots of the Dispute: Joint Development and RERA Orders

The legal battle originates from a Joint Development Agreement entered into between the builder and the landowners for a project named Roshan Platinum Apartment in Arakere village. While the project was reportedly completed in 2018, issues arose regarding the occupancy certificate. The specific point of contention involved Flat No. 314, purchased by individuals named as Accused Nos. 4 to 6 in the FIR.

In 2021, these purchasers approached the RERA authority against both the builder and the landowners. Subsequently, the builder alleged that he discovered a sale agreement dated April 4, 2017, for the said flat, which he claimed bore his forged signature. According to the builder, the landowners had agreed to sell the flat for 70,20,000 rupees, leading to a bank loan of over one crore rupees being sanctioned. The builder further stated that RERA had ordered him and the landowners to pay 37,80,000 rupees in interest due to delayed possession, an obligation he claimed arose from the allegedly forged document.

Arguments for the Landowners

Counsel for Tejas and Pratibha argued that the criminal complaint was a “counter-blast” intended to harass the landowners and avoid the financial implications of the RERA order. The defense maintained that since the flat in question fell under the landowners’ share of the built-up area, the developer’s concurrence was not legally required for its sale. They argued that the builder’s signature was merely a formality and that no forgery had occurred.

The petitioners emphasized their innocence, noting that they are respectable citizens with deep roots in society. They expressed a reasonable apprehension of arrest following a police notice issued under Section 41(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which often precedes custodial interrogation. They argued that any arrest would lead to significant humiliation and undue hardship.

The Prosecution’s Opposition

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. Relying on the Case Diary and instructions from the Investigating Officer, the prosecution argued that the allegations of forging a signature on a registered document were serious. They contended that if released on bail, the petitioners might abscond, intimidate witnesses, or destroy evidence related to the financial transactions and the forged instrument.

Judicial Observations: Civil vs. Criminal Nature

In evaluating the petition, the court looked closely at the timeline of events. Judge Narashimsa M.V. noted that while the builder claimed to have learned of the alleged forgery in February 2022, the formal police complaint was not lodged until November 2022. The court also took judicial notice of the fact that RERA had already passed a substantive order regarding interest payments for delayed possession.

The judge remarked that it must be determined during a full-fledged trial whether the builder was attempting to bypass the RERA authority’s orders by initiating criminal proceedings. The court observed that the transaction appeared to be prima facie civil in nature. The court held that a criminal texture should not be forcefully applied to a litigation that essentially concerns contractual rights and property shares.

Furthermore, the court noted that the document in question—the sale agreement—is already part of the record at the RERA authority and the involved bank, meaning it is not susceptible to being destroyed or tampered with by the petitioners.

Conditions for Release

Concluding that the offences alleged are not punishable by death or life imprisonment and that the petitioners are likely to cooperate with the law, the court allowed the anticipatory bail application. The petitioners were ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest, subject to the following conditions:

The petitioners must execute a personal bond for 50,000 rupees each with one surety of the like amount. They are strictly prohibited from tampering with prosecution witnesses or hampering the investigative process. Additionally, they are required to attend the Magistrate’s court on all dates of hearing and are restricted from leaving the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission.

This ruling underscores the judiciary’s caution against the use of criminal law as a tool in property and developmental disputes that are already being adjudicated by specialized civil or regulatory bodies.