<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court has taken a suo motu cognisance of "collusive litigations" by officials of the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) and directed its registry to institute a petition to examine the actions taken in respect of 3 acres 33 guntas of land in Bengaluru north Taluk.</p><p>"A deeper scrutiny into the saga, as has unfolded, is warranted," a bench of Justices of Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said.</p>.Govt hands over Bengaluru Sky Deck project to BDA, doubles land allocation to 41 acres.<p>In its July 31, 2025 judgment, while allowing a plea by S V Vijayalakshmi and others to quash an FIR related to cheating and other offences, court invoked its extraordinary power to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution to take suo motu cognizance and directed for registration of a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.</p><p>"Common citizens who were the beneficiaries of the acquisition by the BDA have been denied the benefits thereof, and we have no hesitation in saying so, what could only be termed as collusive litigation between the BDA and the appellants," the bench said.</p><p>Examining the matter, the court said the obvious reasons are writ large on the facts and circumstances of the case. </p><p>"This court cannot, and would not, turn a blind eye to such blatant misuse of the law and acts of omissions/commissions, especially by statutory authorities. As such, we do not propose to leave the matter as is,'' the bench said. </p><p>The court directed for listing the matter with a pending special leave petition filed by the BDA.</p><p>Considering the challenge to the High Court's refusal to quash the criminal proceedings, the bench declared there is no bar to simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings on the very same set of allegations relating to the same persons.</p><p>However, in the case, the court found no offence as alleged in the complaint was made out against the appellants.</p><p>The appellants claimed the High Court failed to consider that the mandatory procedure as laid down in Priyanka Srivastava versus State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015), was not followed in filing the private complaint against them before the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru under Section 200 of the CrPC.</p><p>Finding that the approach adopted by the High Court in the case was not erroneous, the bench explained directions issued in Priyanka Srivastava are mandatory but the guidelines laid down would operate prospectively.</p><p>"Non-filing of the supporting affidavit is a curable defect, but must be cured before the Magistrate passes any substantive order on the complaint/application, and; if the Magistrate proceeds without the requisite affidavit, such order/any consequential orders/proceedings can be quashed on the sole ground of non-compliance with Priyanka Srivastava," the bench said.</p>
<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court has taken a suo motu cognisance of "collusive litigations" by officials of the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) and directed its registry to institute a petition to examine the actions taken in respect of 3 acres 33 guntas of land in Bengaluru north Taluk.</p><p>"A deeper scrutiny into the saga, as has unfolded, is warranted," a bench of Justices of Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said.</p>.Govt hands over Bengaluru Sky Deck project to BDA, doubles land allocation to 41 acres.<p>In its July 31, 2025 judgment, while allowing a plea by S V Vijayalakshmi and others to quash an FIR related to cheating and other offences, court invoked its extraordinary power to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution to take suo motu cognizance and directed for registration of a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.</p><p>"Common citizens who were the beneficiaries of the acquisition by the BDA have been denied the benefits thereof, and we have no hesitation in saying so, what could only be termed as collusive litigation between the BDA and the appellants," the bench said.</p><p>Examining the matter, the court said the obvious reasons are writ large on the facts and circumstances of the case. </p><p>"This court cannot, and would not, turn a blind eye to such blatant misuse of the law and acts of omissions/commissions, especially by statutory authorities. As such, we do not propose to leave the matter as is,'' the bench said. </p><p>The court directed for listing the matter with a pending special leave petition filed by the BDA.</p><p>Considering the challenge to the High Court's refusal to quash the criminal proceedings, the bench declared there is no bar to simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings on the very same set of allegations relating to the same persons.</p><p>However, in the case, the court found no offence as alleged in the complaint was made out against the appellants.</p><p>The appellants claimed the High Court failed to consider that the mandatory procedure as laid down in Priyanka Srivastava versus State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015), was not followed in filing the private complaint against them before the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru under Section 200 of the CrPC.</p><p>Finding that the approach adopted by the High Court in the case was not erroneous, the bench explained directions issued in Priyanka Srivastava are mandatory but the guidelines laid down would operate prospectively.</p><p>"Non-filing of the supporting affidavit is a curable defect, but must be cured before the Magistrate passes any substantive order on the complaint/application, and; if the Magistrate proceeds without the requisite affidavit, such order/any consequential orders/proceedings can be quashed on the sole ground of non-compliance with Priyanka Srivastava," the bench said.</p>
