In a major decision, the Supreme Court of India on 31 July 2025 quashed the FIR and all related proceedings in the land dispute involving S.N. Vijayalakshmi & Others vs. State of Karnataka & Keerthiraj Shetty, noting the absence of criminal elements in the case which essentially revolved around a failed land sale agreement.
Background of the Case
A private complaint was filed by Keerthiraj Shetty against the appellants alleging cheating and criminal conspiracy related to a land deal in Bhoopasandra Village, Bengaluru. The land belonged to the family of the appellants and had been under dispute since the 1970s, involving multiple litigations, acquisition by the BDA, de-notification, and subsequent resale interests.
Read also:- Supreme Court Rules: Commuting Accidents Covered Under Employment Compensation – Key Legal Insights
On 30 November 2015, the appellants signed an Agreement to Sell (ATS) the land for ₹3.5 crores to the complainant. They also executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA). ₹2 lakh was paid upfront. However, disputes arose when the GPA was cancelled in 2022 and the property was gifted within the family, allegedly sidelining the complainant.
“The accused induced me into spending money and time in clearing litigations over the land, only to later revoke the GPA and transfer property internally,” claimed the complainant.
He alleged cheating under IPC sections 405, 406, 415, 417, 418, 420, 504, 506, 384, 120B read with 34. He filed a private complaint (PCR No. 12357/2022) before the ACMM, which led to FIR No. 260/2023 being registered on 05.10.2023.
Read also:- SC Dismisses Review Plea in Harkaish Bhadoria vs Union of India Case
Civil Nature of Dispute:
The Court found the dispute to be primarily civil in nature, dealing with a failed property transaction and not involving criminal breach of trust or cheating.
Lack of Entrustment or Dishonest Inducement:
The Court noted that the accused were rightful owners of the land. There was no entrustment of property or dishonest inducement under IPC Sections 406 or 420.
ATS Terms Not Violated Criminally:
Although money was paid and ATS signed, the Court found no intent to cheat. The complainant himself admitted delays were due to pending litigations and BBMP Katha issues.
“If there is no criminality, allowing a criminal trial along with civil proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of law,” the bench observed.
Read also:- SC Adjourns CPIL’s Plea Against Centre; Next Hearing on August 5
The Karnataka High Court had earlier refused to quash the FIR. The Supreme Court found this erroneous and reversed the decision.
- IPC Sections 406 and 420. are mutually exclusive; both cannot apply in the same transaction.
- ATS clauses did not support criminal breach or fraudulent intent.
- Procedure under Priyanka Srivastava (2015) 6 SCC 287 was complied with; affidavit was filed before FIR registration.
- The FIR and chargesheet lacked necessary criminal elements.
- Chargesheet dated 28.08.2024 and cognizance on 30.08.2024 were both quashed.
Read also:- Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Meera Devi in NDPS Case
- FIR Crime No. 260/2023, Chargesheet, and Cognizance Order quashed.
- Quashing extended to Vidyasree V.S., a co-accused not party to the appeal, to uphold judicial parity.
- No third-party rights to be created over the subject land till resolution of related BDA proceedings (SLP (C) Nos. 10134-10135/2025).
- Civil suit filed by the complainant may continue.
The Court highlighted serious administrative lapses:
“Common citizens of Bengaluru have suffered due to collusive litigation between the BDA and private parties.”
It hinted at deeper investigation into the BDA’s suspicious withdrawal of appeals and failure to defend public land effectively. Though it refrained from suo motu action due to pending SLPs by BDA, it directed its judgment to be added to the ongoing case records.
Case Title: S.N. Vijayalakshmi & Others vs. State of Karnataka & Another
Date of Judgment: 31 July 2025
FIR No.: Crime No. 260/2023, Sadashivanagar Police Station, Bengaluru
