BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings against Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Pvt. Limited (OUIDPL) and its office bearers based on the complaints filed by the home buyers before the various police stations in the city.
Justice M Nagaprasanna passed the order dismissing the petitions filed by OUIDPL challenging the legality of the criminal proceedings initiated against it and its directors, including the chairman and managing director and other officials of the company, by several homebuyers due to delay in completion of the project and handing over possession of the residential units, under the provisions of the IPC and the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004.
In one such complaint registered in 2021, it was alleged that the complainant and his wife, being home buyers, had booked a flat in Ozone Urbana by obtaining a housing loan, the amount of which was being directly disbursed to the company. Though the company had undertaken to complete the construction and deliver possession, the company failed to deliver possession of the flat.
In another private complaint registered in 2022, it was alleged that the company collected substantial amounts from homebuyers towards sale consideration and obtained direct disbursement of home loans in its favour. Despite the receipt of nearly 95 per cent of the sale consideration, the construction is said not to have been completed.
On the predicate offence being registered in both the crimes, the Directorate of Enforcement has also registered the complaint in 2022 under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Later, two other complaints were registered by the senior citizens and Ozone Urbana Buyers Welfare Association in 2024 against the company for several offences, including cheating and criminal breach of trust.
The complainants alleged that the amounts involved exceed Rs 3,300 crores and constitute the proceeds of crime under the PMLA, leading to the ED initiating an investigation.
Denying the allegations, the company contended that there is no allegation of deception or fraudulent intention and there is neither entrustment nor dishonest misappropriation, and payment of consideration towards purchase of a flat is part of a commercial transaction. The dispute is purely civil and contractual in nature. There are also no specific allegations against directors. Mere delay in completion of the project cannot constitute cheating, particularly when the FIR is lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay. The complainants having already availed the remedy under the RERA, cannot pursue parallel criminal proceedings on the same cause of action, the company’s counsel argued.