Bangalore District Court
Vinayaka R B vs Mehul Patel on 25 April, 2026
KABC030004372016
Digitally signed
DEEPA
VEERASWAMY by DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
Presented on : 04-01-2016
Registered on : 04-01-2016
Decided on : 25-04-2026
Duration : 10 years, 3 months, 21 days
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt. Deepa V., B.A.L. LL B.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
Date: this the 25th Day of April, 2026
C. C. No.101/2016
(Crime No.46/2013)
State by J. C. Nagara Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
1. Sri Mehul Patel - Split up
Aged about 33 years,
S/o Sri Jayanth Patel,
R/at No.62, G-3,
Archid Apartment,
Nandidurga, Crescent Road,
Bengaluru-46.
KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016
2. Smt. Roopam Patel,
Aged about 55 years,
W/o Sri Naishad N Patel,
3. Sri Naishad N Patel-abated
Aged about 64 years,
S/o Sri Natwarlal,
Accused No.2 and 3 are
R/at Indira Camp,
No.10/2, Cunningham Road,
Crescent Road,
Bengaluru City. ... Accused
(Rep by Sri Balaji Rao, Advocate for Accused No. 2)
1. Date of commission of 07-01-2008 -
offence 04-04-2013
2. Date of FIR 04-04-2013
3. Date of Charge sheet 17-03-2014
4. Name of Complainant Sri Vinayak R. B.
5. Offences complained of Under Section 465,
471, 468, 420, 504,
506 read with Section
34 of IPC
6. Date of framing charge 30-09-2019
2
KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016
7. Charge Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of commencement 08-06-2023
of Evidence
9. Date of Judgment is 25-04-2026
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 25-04-2026
11. Final order Accused No.2 is
convicted for the
offences punishable
under section 420,
465, 468, 471 R/ w
Section 34 of IPC and
acquitted for the
offences punishable
under section 504
and 506 of IPC
12. Date of Sentence 25-04-2026
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of J. C. Nagara Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 465, 471, 468, 420, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016
2. Prosecution Case: That on 07-01-2008 at Nandidurga Crescent Road, Archid Flat No.E-3, 1st floor, House No.62 within the limits of J.C.Nagara PS, the accused No.1 called CW1 namely Sri Vinayak to his house and told him that, accused No.2 and 3 wanted to sell their property at Ramanashree California Gardens, who were residing in abroad and GPA has given to him for which he was trying to sell Flat No.P-27, P-28, P-29 to CW1, for that CW1 has given Rs.54,50,000/- and remaining Rs.65,51,500/- was given through DD in the name of accused No.2 and No.3, thereafter the accused persons have not made registered the property to CW1, when CW1 questioned, the accused No.1 told him that he sold the said property to some other persons and intend to sell property sites No.B-50/1, B-50/2, B-52/2, B- 53/1 & 53/2, but up to April 2013, the accused has not registered the site/flat in the name of CW1 and had not repaid the amount Rs.1,20,01,500/- and cheated CW1. When the CW1 to CW3 went to house of accused No.1 to ask for their money back, accused No.1 abused CW1 in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences, thereby accused persons committed alleged offences.
3. First Information Report: Upon the receipt first information from CW1, CW7/PW7 Sri Amol Sudamrao Kale, PSI registered Crime No.46/2013 4 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 406, 468, 420, 504, 506 of IPC, prepared FIR as per Ex.P20 and drawn spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 and handed over the case papers to CW8.
4. Investigation: Thereafter CW8/PW5 Sri. N. Tanveer, PI of J.C. Nagara Police Station secured the documents from HDFC and Vijaya Banks and handed over the case papers to CW9. CW9/PW9 Sri Gopal.C., PI obtained further complaint as per Ex.P20 from CW1, obtained documents from HDFC bank and handed over the case papers to CW10. CW10/PW6 continued the investigation and submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 465, 471, 468, 420, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
5. At pre - cognizance stage, the accused No.1 was enlarged on bail by the order dated 18-7-2013. Accused No.2 and 3 were enlarged on bail by the order dated 23-09-2016.
6. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court had taken cognizance for the offences alleged against the accused No.1 to 3.
5KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016
7. Copies of prosecution papers as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused persons.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Senior APP and counsel for accused No.1 to 3, charge for the offences punishable under Section for the offences punishable under Section 465, 471, 468, 420, 504, 506 read with Section 34 read with Section 34 of IPC of Indian Penal Code, has been framed, read over and explained to the accused persons in the language known to them, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. In view of death of accused No.3, the case against him was abated by the order dated 23/12/2024.
10. In view of death of accused No.3, the case against him was ordered to be abated by the order dated 23/12/2024.
11. In view of continuous absence of accused No.1 the case against him was split up by the order dated 09/01/2025 and CC No.43065/2025 came to be registered against him.
6KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016
12. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 10 witnesses and examined 9 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents and closed their side.
13. Accused statement as per section 313 of CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused No.2 was examined as per section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein she denied all incriminating evidence appearing in the statement of prosecution witness and did not lead any rebuttal evidence.
14. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on the record.
15. The following point are arises for consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 07-01-2008 at Nandidurga Crescent Road, Archid Flat No.E-3, 1st floor, House No.62 within the jurisdiction of J.C.Nagara PS, the split up accused No.1 informed CW1 namely Sri Vinayak that accused No. 2 and 7 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 abated accused No.3 wants to sell their property at Ramanashree California Gardens who were residing in abroad and he had a GPA from them, hence CW1 has paid Rs.54,50,000/-in cash and remaining Rs.65,51,500/- was given through DD, in the name of accused 2 and 3 to purchase Flat No.P-27, P-28, P-29, but split up accused No.1 has not executed registration, when CW1 questioned, he told that the said property were already sold and he will give other sites bearing Nos.B-50/1, B-50/2, B-52/2, B-53/1 & 53/2, but upto 2013 April the accused has not registered the site/flat in the name of CW1 and not repaid the amount Rs.1,20,01,500/- and cheated CW1 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC?
8KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016
2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that commit an offence the accused No.2 along with split up accused No.1 and abated accused No.3 with dishonest to have wrongful gain hatched a plan to forge the documents and tried to sell the above said properties in the name of CW1 thereby resulted in commission of offences punishable under Section 465 R/W Sec.34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that in furtherance of common intention, the accused No.2 along with split up accused No.1 and abated accused No.3 forged the documents of properties and also GPA intending that shall be used for the purpose of cheating thereby resulted in commission of offences punishable under Section 468 R/W Sec. 34 of IPC?
9KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016
4. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that in furtherance of common intention, the accused No.2 along with split up accused No.1 and abated accused No.3 with an intention to commit an offence forged the document and used the same as genuine knowingly well that the document is forged document thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable under Section 471 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.2 along with split up accused No.1 and abated accused No.3 in furtherance of common intention abused CW1 in filthy language knowingly such insult will provoke breach peace and thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable under 10 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 Section 504 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
6. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.2 along with split up accused No.1 in furtherance of common intention put life threat to CW1 and thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable under Section 506 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
7. What order?
16. The court's findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 to 4 : In the affirmative Point No.5 & 6 : In the negative Point No.7 : As per final order REASONS
17. Point No.1 to 6: These points are taken up together for the purpose of common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts as they form the 11 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 same transaction. In support of prosecution case as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for consideration in paragraph 15 of this judgment, the prosecution has examined the witnesses which are as follows i. CW1 namely Sri Vinayak, being informant examined as PW1 deposed that, accused No.1 had intend to sell 3 plots out of 30 plots in Ramanashri California Garden belonging to the accused No.2 and
3. In December 2007, the accused No.1 gave him a copy of GPA and he had paid an advance of Rs.7.5 lakhs per plot bearing Nos.P-27, P-28 and P-29, an agreement for sale was executed on 07-01-2008, under which he had paid Rs.22,50,000/-. Later, the accused No.1 told that there was some problems over ownership of the plots, and he would sell 6 more plots, so he paid an advance of Rs.24 lakhs and entered into an agreement for sale with the accused No.1, the accused No.2 and 3 are the owners of the said 6 plots. Further deposed that, accused No.1 had taken him to the Yelahanka Sub-Registrar Office for execution of registration of sale deed and obtained DD for Rs. 53,50,000/- in the name of the accused No.2 and 3. Apart from the DD, the accused No.1 has also received Rs.20 lakhs from him in cash and has also given him a receipt for payment. After going to the registration office, the accused No.1 obtained the DDs and got the sale deed signed and said that 12 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 he would talk to the Registrar however did not return, after the closure of office, he returned and said that the Sub-registrar was not available on this day and asked him to come on the next day and thereafter the accused was unfound. After one and a half year, he met accused No.1 at his house and asked his money back, for which accused No.1 said he had 4 more plots and he would give them to him as security. Later, when he came to know that there were cases against the accused No.1 in several police stations and hence he checked the records in respect of the plots who came to know that accused No.1 has already been sold to someone else. Further deposed that, on 02-04-2013, when he asked accused No.1 to return back the money, accused No.1 abused him with filthiest language and threatened him. Hence, he had filed a complaint as per Ex.P1 and the police conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2. He identified certified copies of 3 payment receipts dated 25-09- 2009 as per Ex.P3 to 5, Certified copies of 3 payment receipts dated 05-10-2009 as per Ex.P6 to 8, certified copies of two sale agreements dated 25-09-2009 as per Ex.P9 and 10, certified copy of sale agreement dated 13-09-2010 as per Ex.P11, certified copy of sale agreement dated 25-09-2009 as per Ex.P12, particulars of 7 DDs issued by HDFC Bank as per Ex.P1 13, original copies of 3 sale agreements dated 07-01-2008 as per Ex.P14 to 16.
13KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 ii. CW2 Sri Rajendra.R.B., brother of CW1 examined as PW2 deposed that on 07-01-2008, after the accused No.1 had separately entered into a sale agreement to purchase for the properties of Yelahanka Ramanashree California Garden, P-27, P- 28 and P-29 from his younger brother CW1, he had executed six more plots, namely B-50/1, B-50/2, B- 52/2, B-53/1, B-53/2 in the name of CW1 on 25-09- 2009. According for 1st sale agreement they paid Rs. 22,50,000/-, 2nd sale agreement paid Rs. 24 lakhs and Rs.20 lakhs, a total of Rs.44 lakh given to the accused No.1 for the 6 plots. Since there was a legal hurdle to execute sale deed, the accused No.1 had agreed to give other plots viz., C-50, C-51 and received an advance payment of Rs.53 lakhs for the sale of C-53, P-59 in the name of CW1. Thereafter accused No.1 had neither returned the money nor executed the sale deeds, apart, he threatened CW1. In this regard, CW1 filed complaint.
iii. CW3/PW3 namely Sri Rangaswamy, deposed that, on 05-10-2009, he, CW1 and CW2 and accused No.1 went to the Yelahanka Sub-Registrar's Office to sign the purchase agreement to purchase a site from the accused No.1, but the Sub-Registrar was not in the office, so he returned. On 13-09-2010, he went to the accused No.1's house to sign the purchase agreement to purchase another site and signed the said Agreement. In this regard, the learned Sr.APP 14 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 has cross examined this witness by treating him as hostile witness and he admitted that, in the year 2008, the accused No.1 informed him there was property for sale at Ramanashri California Garden in Yelahanka belongs to accused No.2 and 3 and he is a GPA holder, accused No.2 who is the sister of the accused No.1 had given all kinds of authority to sell the property. Further deposed that, CW1 had paid an amount of Rs.1,20,01,500/-in the form of DD and cash, at that time, he along with CW2 has singed on purchase agreement. Thereafter, accused informed that they would sell B-50, B-50/1, B-50/2, B-52/1, B-52/2, B-53/1, B-53/2 instead of P-27, P-28, P-29, they obtained the signatures of CW1 and CW2 on the Sale Agreement, later accused cheated CW1 by not giving the site and returning the money.
iv. CW5/PW4 namely Smt. Reeta Chief Manager of Vijaya Bank, deposed that, in the year 2013, JC Nagar Police Station requested for information about account and accordingly she provided information contained in 6 pages of Statement of Account as per Ex.P17.
v. CW8/PW5 namely Sri Thanveer Ahamed, PI deposed after receipt of case papers from CW7, DDs and bank statements in respect of case were obtained from HDFC Bank, a notice was issued to Vijaya Bank on 18-09-2013, the statement of account was 15 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 obtained in respect of Account No.16757 and Account No.16758 belonging to accused No.2 and No. 3 and handed over the case papers to CW9 for further investigation.
vi. CW10 namely Sri Ramesh Kumar, PI examined as PW6 deposed that, after receipt of case papers form CW8, obtained information from Assistant Revenue Officer stating that there was no account in the name of the accused No. 1, recorded the statement of CW2 to CW6, after investigation he filed charge sheet against accused.
vii. CW7 namely Sri Amol Sudhamarao Kale, PSI examined as PW7 deposed that, on 04-04-2013, he received written complaint from CW1, registered FIR as per Ex.P20, drawn spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 and handed over the case papers to CW8 for further investigation.
viii. CW6 namely Sri B.K. Narasimha Naidu, the then Assistant Revenue Officer examined as PW8 deposed that, JC Nagar Police Station sought for information in respect of properties P-27, P-28, P-29, B-50/1, B-50/2, B-52/2, B-53/1, B-53/2 of Ramanashri California Garden and accordingly he provided the information available in the office to the investigating officer as per Ex.P19.
16KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 ix. CW9 namely Sri Gopal.C. PI examined as PW9 deposed that, on 07-07-2013, CW1 gave a further complaint as per Ex.P20 stating that he had given money to the accused in cash and through DD, hence he addressed a letter to the HDFC Bank Jayanagar Manager and sought particulars about the DD given from the account of Sri Vinayak to the accounts of accused No.2 and 3 and later, handed over case papers to CW8 for further investigation.
18. Before proceeding with the point No.1 for cheating, it is significant to discuss about the accused No.1 to 3 with common intention fabricated the sale agreements as per Ex.P14 to 16 and hence the point No.2 to 4 has taken up for discussion first . The relevant provision of forgery is as under
463. Forgery.--3 [Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury], to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.17
KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 Section 464 in The Indian Penal Code Making a false document.-- [A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record-- First --Who dishonestly or fradulently
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any [electronic signature] on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the [electronic signature], with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or [electronic signature] was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or 18 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 Secondly--Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with [electronic signature] either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly--Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his [electronic signature] on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.]
465. Punishment for forgery.--
Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
19KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 Section 468:- Forgery for purpose of cheating whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Thus, it is culled out the main ingredients of forgery from aforesaid sections are:
1. Making a False Document
2. As per Section 463 IPC, forgery involves making any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record.
3. Section 464 IPC further defines when a person is said to have made a false document:
Dishonestly or fraudulently making, signing, sealing, or executing a document, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made, signed, sealed, or executed 20 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority the maker knows it was not made, signed, sealed, or executed dishonestly or fraudulently altering a document or electronic record in any material part after it has been made or executed
4. Dishonestly or fraudulently causing any person to sign, seal, execute, or alter a document or electronic record, knowing that the person does not know the contents or nature of the alteration due to unsoundness of mind or intoxication
5. Intention to Cause Damage, Injury, or Fraud
6. The false document must be made with the intent to cause damage or injury to the public or any person, support any claim or title, cause a person to part with property, enter into a contract, or commit fraud.
7. Knowledge of Forgery 21 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 In this backdrop, the present case is taken up for evaluation of oral and documentary evidence to ascertain whether the prosecution has made out the case for forgery.
19. The present case is charge sheeted accused No.1 being the PA Holder of accused No.2 and 3 who claims to be owner of the property mentioned in Ex.P14 to Ex.P16 i.e., P27, P28 and P29 was agreed to sell and purchase admeasuring 5,480 square feet and P29 admeasuring 5,360 square feet as Rs.550/-
per square foot and paid Rs.7,50,000/- on each Ex.P14 to Ex.P16. No doubt, the learned counsel for accused No.2 and 3 has argued that they were not mentioned as the owners of the property as the agreement for sale as per Ex.P9 dated 25/09/2009 appears that accused No.1 was the GPA Holder of Sri Mohannandan Nair S/o. M Keshavan Nair in respect of plot nos. 50/1 and 50/2 admeasuring 8000 square feet at Ramanashree California Resorts, Yelahanaka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and PW1 agreed to purchase 4000 square feet each and paid DD for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- vide demand draft No.017765 dated 25/09/2009 drawn on HDFC Bank limited , Jayanagar Branch, Bangalore in favour of Sri Naishadh Patel and was attested by the PW2 and PW3 as witnesses and the agreement for sale as per Ex.P10 dated 25/09/2009 appears that accused No. 22 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 1 was the GPA Holder of Sri Mohannandan Nair S/o. M Keshavan Nair in respect of plot nos. 53/1 and 53/2 admeasuring 8000 square feet at Ramanashree California Resorts, Yelahanaka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and PW1 agreed to purchase 4000 square feet each and paid DD for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- vide demand draft No.017766 dated 25/09/2009 drawn on HDFC Bank limited , Jayanagar Branch, Bangalore and was attested by the PW2 and PW3 as witnesses; the agreement for sale as per Ex.P11 dated 13/09/2010 appears that accused No.1 in respect of plot nos. C-51, C53 and C- 54 each admeasuring 9000 square feet and C-54 meausring 9,352 square feet at Ramanashree California Gardens, Residential Layout, Ananthapura Village, Yelahanaka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and PW1 agreed to purchase 2,90,81,600/- and paid advance amount of Rs.53,51,500/- with DD drawn on 05/10/2009 for a sum of Rs. 8,40,000/- vide demand draft No.017813 in favour of Smt. Rupam N Patel payable at Bangalore ; with DD drawn on 05/10/2009 for a sum of Rs. 8,50,500/- vide demand draft No.017814 in favour of Smt. Rupam N Patel payable at Bangalore ; DD drawn on 05/10/2009 for a sum of Rs. 8,61,000/- vide demand draft No.017812 in favour of Smt. Rupam N Patel payable at Bangalore ; DD drawn on 05/10/2009 for a sum of Rs.28,00,000/- vide demand draft No.017817 in favour of Smt. Rupam N Patel (accused No. 2) payable 23 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 at Bangalore ; and was attested by the PW2 and PW3 as witnesses and the agreement for sale as per Ex.P12 dated 25/09/2009 appears that accused No.1 was the GPA Holder of Sri Sri S N Shridahr S/o. Sri. N S Sitaram and Smt. Indurani Shridhar W/o. Sri N S Shridhar in respect of plot nos. 52/1 and 52/2 admeasuring 8000 square feet at Ramanashree California Resorts, Yelahanaka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and PW1 agreed to purchase 800 square foot each and paid DD for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- vide demand draft No.017764 dated 25/09/2009 drawn on HDFC Bank limited , Jayanagar Branch, Bangalore in favour of Sri Naushad Patel (accused No.
3) and was attested by the PW2 and PW3 as witnesses.
20. In support of which, prosecution produced the receipts for having received the cash from the PW1 for Rs. 4,00,000/- on 25/09/2009 which was said to have issued by the accused No.1 as per Ex. P. 3 in respect of vacant site bearing No. B-50/1, B- 50/2 measuring 8000 square feet; the receipts for having paid Rs. 4,00,000/- on 25/09/2009 which was said to have issued by the accused No.1 as per Ex. P. 4 in respect of vacant site bearing No. B-52/1, B-52/2 measuring 8000 square feet , the receipts for having paid Rs. 4,00,000/- on 25/09/2009 which was said to have issued by the accused No.1 as per Ex. P. 5 in respect of vacant site bearing No. B-53/1, 24 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 B-53/2 measuring 8000 square feet , the receipts for having paid Rs. 7,00,000/- on 05/10/2009 which was said to have issued by the accused No.1 as per Ex. P. 6 in respect of vacant site bearing No. B-50/1, B-50/2 measuring 8000 square feet , the receipts for having paid Rs. 7,00,000/- on 05/10/2009 which was said to have issued by the accused No.1 as per Ex. P. 6 in respect of vacant site bearing No. B-52/1, B-52/2 measuring 8000 square feet , the receipts for having paid Rs. 6,00,000/- on 05/10/2009 which was said to have issued by the accused No.1 as per Ex. P. 6 in respect of vacant site bearing No. B-53/1, B-53/2 measuring 8000 square feet. In furtherance, the prosecution has relied upon Ex. P. 17 statement of account belongs to the accused No. 2 and 3 wherein the DD was deposited in the account of the accused No. 2 and accused no.3. Though the learned counsel for the accused No. 2 and 3 argued that the prosecution has not produced any document that the account bearing No. 130101020016757 and 130101020016758 belongs to the accused No. 2 and 3 mentioned in Ex.P17 vide account No. 130101020016757 belongs to accused No.3 Sri Naidshed N Patel (accused No.3) with the Vijaya bank wherein Rs.16,00,000/- and account No. 130101020016758 belongs to accused No.2 Sri Rupam N Patel with the Vijaya bank wherein Rs.53,51,500/-. However the accused no.3 admitted that the aforesaid account belongs to the accused 25 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 No.2 and 3 in the complaint lodged by the accused No.3 with High Grounds Police Station, Bangalore on 22/11/2012 having registered in Crime No. 325/2012 as per the complaint and FIR with the seal of High grounds Police Station on record and added to which, there was no cross examination from the accused No. 2 and 3 as alleged to have cheated by the accused No.1. In furtherance, in the said complaint, the accused No. 3 admitted that accused No. 2 and 3 executed the GPA in favour fo accused No. 1 who is the sister son of accused No. 3 and such being the case, the question of proving the GPA when it is an admitted the document in Crime No.325/2012 on the file of the High Grounds Police Station does not arise. Even after the knwoledge of transactions the accused No.2 did not cancel the said GPA, which further ratifies the acts of the accused No.1.
21. No doubt, the accused No.2 pleaded ignorance about the transactions in her statement of accused recorded under section 313 of CRPC however the suggestion posed to the PW1 by the accused No. 2 and 3 in the cross examination dated 13/02/2024 depicts that xxxx 2 ಮತ್ತು 3ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರಿಗೆ ಡಿಡಿ ಮೂಲಕ ನೀಡಿದ್ದ ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣ ಹಣವನ್ನು ನಾನು ಅವರಿಂದ ವಾಪಾಸ್ ಪಡೆದು ನಿಪಿ.11 ಮತ್ತು 12 ರಲ್ಲಿ ತೋರಿಸಿರುವ ಆಸ್ತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಖರೀದಿ ಮಾಡುವ 26 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 ಉದ್ದೇಶಕ್ಕೆ ಉಪಯೋಗಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
2 ಮತ್ತು 3ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ನನಗೂ ಮತ್ತು 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ನಡುವ ಆಗಿರುವ ಯಾವುದೇ ವ್ಯವಹಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿಲ್ಲದಿದ್ದರೂ ಸಹ ಅವರಿಂದ ಹಣ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ನಿಪಿ.9 ರಿಂದ 16 ರ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಸೃಷ್ಟಿ ಮಾಡಿ ಸುಳ್ಳು ದೂರು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದೆಃನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಸದರಿ ಆರೋಪಿತರಿಗೆ ನೀಡಿರುವ ಡಿಡಿ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಅವರ ಖಾತೆಯಿಂದ ನಾನು ವಾಪಾಸ್ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. 2 ಮತ್ತು 3ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರಿಗೆ ಸದರಿ ಡಿಡಿ ಗಳು ಅವರ ಖಾತೆಗೆ ಡೆಪಾಸಿಟ್ ಆಗಿರುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ನನ್ನ ಮತ್ತು 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ನಡುವೆ ಆದ ವ್ಯವಹಾರದ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ 2 ಮತ್ತು 3ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಭಾರತ ದೇಶದಲ್ಲಿ ಇಲ್ಲದೇ ಇದ್ದ ವಿಚಾರ ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿತ್ತು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
ನಿಪಿ.3 ರಿಂದ 8 ರ ರಸೀದಿಗಳನ್ನು ನಾನು ಸೃಷ್ಟಿ ಮಾಡಿ ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. 2 ಮತ್ತು 3ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಮುಗ್ದರೂ ಎಂದು ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿದ್ದರೂ ಸಹ ನಾನು ಅವರನ್ನು ಉದ್ದೇಶ ಪೂರ್ವಕವಾಗಿ ಈ ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಸೇರಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ನಿಪಿ.9 ರಿಂದ 16 ರ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ನಿಗದಿತ ಸ್ಟಾಂಪ್ ಶುಲ್ಕವಿಲ್ಲದ ಕಾಗದಪತ್ರಗಳ ಮೇಲೆ ತಯಾರಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. 2 ಮತ್ತು 3ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರ ಬಳಿ ಹಣ ಇದ್ದು ಅದನ್ನು ಹೇಗಾದರೂ ಮಾಡಿ ವಸೂಲಿ ಮಾಡಬೇಕು ಎಂಬ ಉದ್ದೇಶದಿಂದ ಈ ದೂರನ್ನು ಅವರ ಮೇಲೆ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. 2 ಮತ್ತು 3ನೇ 27 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 ಆರೋಪಿತರು ನಿಪಿ.14 ರಿಂದ 16 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾಣಿಸಿರುವ ಆಸ್ತಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಮಾಲೀಕರಾಗಿದ್ದು ಅದನ್ನು ಮಾರಾಟ ಮಾಡಲು ಯಾವುದೇ ಜಿಪಿಎ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಬರೆದುಕೊಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
ನಿಪಿ.14 ರಿಂದ 16 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾಣಿಸಿರುವ ಆಸ್ತಿಗಳಿಗೆ 2 ಮತ್ತು 3ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಮಾಲೀಕರಲ್ಲ ಎಂಬ ವಿಷಯ ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿತ್ತು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. 2 ಮತ್ತು 3ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿತರ ವಿರುದ್ದ ದುರುದ್ದೇಶದಿಂದ ದೂರು ದಾಖಲು ಮಾಡಿ ಸುಳ್ಳು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
Thus, it appears that they have paid the said amount to the PW1 to purchase other properties however no single piece of documents were produced by the accused No.2 rather taken inconsistency defence by denying the GPA and the alleged account does not belong to the accused No.2 and 3 and the same has been withdrawn by the accused No.1 which clearly shows that the accused No.2 and 3 were in connivance with accused No.1 played a forgery and received the amount under Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 and Ex.P3 to Ex.P8. even for an argument sake, if it is admitted that the property does not stand in the name of accused No.2 and 3 as per Ex.P11 and Ex.P12, then it is reasonablely expected for any prudent man to verify his accounts when such huge amount of money was deposited in his account and more so no action was taken against the accused 28 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 No.1 for prevention of Money Laundering Act and no action was taken to communicate the PW1 that if the property was not in the name of accused No.2 and 3 even after the receipt of notice sent from the counsel for PW1 Sri G. Narendra Raju Advocate though the amounts were credited to the account of the accused No.2 and 3 in September and October 2009 which shows their dishonest intention. If the property was not in their name of accused No.2 and 3, how the accused No.2 and 3 could retain the money of PW1 and no other genuine efforts were made to refund the money from the year 2009.
22. Added to which, no action was taken on B Report against the Accused No.1 for cheating them for Rs. 7 crores from the 22/11/2012 and hence non furnishing the status of B Report raises the doubt in the mind of the court that the said complaint was lodged by the accused No.3 only to overcome the alleged transaction reflected in the Ex.P17 in their statement of account and Ex.P11 and Ex.P12.
23. When an agent (accused No.1) commits forgery but the funds are credited to the principal's account, the principal is generally held liable to the third party for the fraud. It appears from the general power of attorney conferred to the accused No.1 by the accused No. 2 depicts that the accused No.2 has 29 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 involved in the business of real estate and trading as 21/08/2001 and further has given the power of attorney in paragraph No.21 which reads as under
and generally to do, execute and perform any other act, deed, matter or thing whatsoever, which in the opinion of our said attorney ought to be done, executed and performed in relation to out business, property and/or assets or in or about our concerns, engagements etc,. etc. as full and effectual in all our aspects as ourselves could do the same if we were personally present and to do all lawful acts necessary for the above mentioned purposes.
Thus, it is clear that accused No. 2 has given the power in general to deal with any properties on her behalf. This is based on the legal principle that a principal cannot benefit from their agent's fraud and simultaneously repudiate the transaction, particularly if the agent was acting within the "scope of possessed apparent authority. The accused No. 2 after the receipt of the money from the PW1 cannot deny the execution of GPA and added to which, the accused No. 2 has not divulged the particulars when 30 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 the accused No. 2 and 3 parted the money either by producing the income tax returns. The accused No. 2 cannot take the defence that he has withdrawn the money when the power of attorney confers the power to withdraw the money. In this context, it is relevant to mention section 238 of Indian Contract Act) which reads as under
Effect, on agreement, of misrepresentation or fraud by agent.--
Misrepresentation made or frauds committed, by agents acting in the course of their business for their principals, have the same effect on agreements made by such agents as if such misrepresentations or frauds had been made or committed by the principals; but misrepresentations made, or frauds committed, by agents, in matters which do not fall within their authority, do not affect their principals.
Illustrations (a) A, being B's agent for the sale of goods, induces C to buy them by a misrepresentation, which he was not authorized by B 31 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 to make. The contract is voidable, as between B and C, at the option of C.
(b) A, the captain of ship, signs bills of lading without having received on board the goods mentioned therein. The bills of lading are void as between B and the pretended consignor.
Fraud or misrepresentation committed by an agent acting in the course of business binds the principal/accused No.2. In furtherance, it is significant to mention section 237 of Indian Contract Act which reads as under
Liability of principal inducing belief that agent's unauthorized acts were authorized. When an agent has, without authority, done acts or incurred obligations to third persons on behalf of his principal, the principal is bound by such acts or obligations, if he has by his words or conduct induced such third persons to believe that such acts and obligations were within the scope of the agent's authority.32
KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 Illustrations
(a) A consigns goods to B for sale, and gives him instructions not to sell under a fixed price. C, being ignorant of Bs instructions, enters into a contract with B to buy the goods at a price lower than the reserved price. A is bound by the contract.
(b) A entrusts B with negotiable instruments endorsed in blank. B sells them to C in violation of private orders from A. The sale is good.
Thus, if the principal's actions led a third party to reasonably believe the agent had authority, the principal is liable, even if the agent exceeded their actual authority. The legal maxim "Qui facit per alium facit per se" applies to the case on hand he who acts through another is deemed to act in person. Since the agent acts as an extension of the principal, the forged act is deemed the act of the principal and added to which if the principal/accused No. 2 accepts the money/benefits from the forged transaction, it is considered ratification of the act, making them responsible as per section 196 to 200 of Indian Contract Act.
33KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016
24. The counsel for the accused No.2 and 3 argued that the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt however from the material on record prosecution proved the ingredients of offence under section 465 of IPC that the accused No.1 has created the agreement and received the advance amount and DD from PW1 and thereafter decline to register the sale deed and added to which, the said forgery document was used to cheat the PW1 though the accused No.2 and 3 does not have ownership over the documents as per Ex.P11 and Ex.P12.
25. IO has made efforts to secure the particulars of ownership of accused No.1 in respect of property of Plot No. P27, P28, P29, B50/1, B-50/2, B-52/2, B53/1, B 53/2 situated at Ramanashree California Garden, Yalahanka as per Ex.P19 from BBMP dated 04/12/2013 and this Ex.P19 is very clear that the accused No.1 does not possess these properties in his name. However IO did not make any attempt to verify in the name of accused No.2 and 3 but does not mean that the acts of accused No.2 and 3 after receiving huge amounts of money could be silent without accounting the same. When the prosecution has established their case as the Ex. P. 11 and 12 was created without any ownership and received the amounts upon the receipts as per Ex. P. 3 to 8 and Ex. P. 17, the burden of proof shifts upon the 34 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 accused persons. In this regard, this court relies upon Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act which reads as under
Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Such being the case, the accused No.2 never rebutted the Ex.P17 ( DD deposited in the name of accused No. 2 and 3) with any cogent evidence.
26. The defence of accused No.1 was that the advance sale consideration amounts mentioned in the Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 were transferred to the account of accused No.2 and 3 and the Ex.P17 was admitted in the crime No. 325/2012 and such being the case, the accused No.2 never rebutted anything that the accused No.1 acted beyond the Powers conferred by the accused No.2 through GPA by producing the GPA which does not have authority to the accused No. 1 to act upon. Hence the Point No.2 is answered in affirmative.
27. Point No.3 and 4:- Sections 468 and 471 of IPC reads as follows:
35KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.--Whoever commits forgery, intending that the 1[document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
471. Using as genuine a forged 1[document or electronic record].
--Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any 1[document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged 1[document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such 1[document or electronic record].
28. It has been held in the case of Mir Nagvi Askari vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 528 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it was observed and held as under:
36KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 "A person is said to make a false document or record if he satisfies one of the three conditions as noticed hereinbefore and provided for under the said section.
The first condition being that the document has been falsified with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document has been made by a person, by whom the person falsifying the document knows that it was not made. Clearly the documents in question in the present case, even if it be assumed to have been made dishonestly or fraudulently, had been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that they were made by or under the authority of someone else.
The second criteria of the section deals with a case where a person without lawful authority alters a document after it has been made. There has been no allegation of alteration of the voucher in question after they have been made. Therefore in our opinion 37 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 the second criteria of the said section is also not applicable to the present case.
The third and final condition of Section 464 deals with a document, signed by a person who due to his mental capacity does not know the contents of the documents which were made i.e., because of intoxication or unsoundness of mind etc. Such is also not the case before this court for consideration. Indisputably therefore the accused No.1 falls under first category that he created the false document -GPA dated 25/09/2006 under the authority of the CW2/PW6.
29. In the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 wherein it was held that " 11. In short, a person is said to have made a `false document', if
(i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone 38 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 else or authorized by someone else; or
(ii) he altered or tampered a document; or
(iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.
30. The accused No.2 has not denied the crime No. 325/2012 and such being the case without ownership of property how the accused No. 2 and 3 could have received the huge amounts upon Ex.P17. Thus, the acts of accused No. 1 for having created the sale deed when the property does not have in the name of accused No.2 and 3 executed by the accused No.1 falls under the first categories of `false documents' and the accused No.2 has not denied the receipt of amount in the crime No. 325/2012 from the accused No.1. It therefore remains to be seen whether the claim of informant /PW1 that the execution of sale agreement by the accused No.1, who was in no way connected with the land, created sale agreement and received the amount with the intention of defrauding PW1 would bring the case under the first category by falsely claiming to be authorized or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. The prosecution has established that the accused No.2 and 3 were in 39 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 connivance with the accused No.1 has fabricated Ex.P11 and Ex.P12. The contention of accused No. 2 that the PW1 should have verified the documents before parting the money to the accused No.1 however the documents were shown to the PW1 as per version of PW1 to PW3 which does not mean that it is a license for the accused No.1 to 3 to cheat the public by playing fraud to invest the money. Thus, the accused No.2 along with the accused No.1 and abated accused No.3 is held guilty for the offence punishable under section 468 of IPC.
31. It is relevant to mention Sections 468 and 471 of IPC reads as follows:
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.--Whoever commits forgery, intending that the 1[document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
471. Using as genuine a forged 1[document or electronic record].
--Whoever fraudulently or
40
KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016
dishonestly uses as genuine any 1[document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged 1[document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such 1[document or electronic record].
32. The essential ingredients of Section 471 are (i) fraudulent or dishonest use of document as genuine
(ii) knowledge or reasonable belief on the part of person using the document that it is a forged one.
33. Section 471 is intended to apply to persons other than forger himself, but the forger himself is not excluded from the operation of the Section.
34. To attract Section 471, it is not necessary that the person held guilty under the provision must have forged the document himself or that the person independently charged for forgery of the document must of necessity be convicted, before the person using the forged document, knowing it to be a forged one can be convicted, as long as the fact that the document used stood established or proved to be a forged one.41
KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016
35. The act or acts which constitute the commission of the offence of forgery are quite different from the act of making use of a forged document. The expression 'fraudulently and dishonestly' are defined in Section 25 and 24 of IPC respectively. For an offence under Section 471, one of the necessary ingredients is fraudulent and dishonest use of the document as genuine. The act need not be both dishonest and fraudulent. The use of document as contemplated by Section 471 must be voluntary one. For sustaining conviction under Section 471 it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that accused No.2 and 3 knew or had reason to believe that the Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 to be a forged one. Whether the accused No.2 and 3 knew or had reason to believe the Ex. P. 11 and Ex. P. 12 in question to be a forged is clear from Ex. P. 17 ( statement of account) chosen to remain silent and the same could be inferred from their conduct in not paying the amounts received from PW1 though in crime No. 325/2012 admitted that the PW1 was cheated by the accused No. 1.
36. Under the IPC, guilt in respect of almost all the offences is fastened either on the ground of "intention" or "knowledge" or "reason to believe".
"Knowledge" is an awareness on the part of the person concerned indicating his state of mind. "Reason to believe" is a higher level of state of mine.42
KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016
37. Section 26 of IPC explains the meaning of the words "reason to believe" thus:
26 - "Reason to believe": A person is said to have 'reason to believe' a thing, if he has sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise."
In substance what it means is that a person must have reason to believe if the circumstances are such that a reasonable man would, by probable reasoning, conclude or infer regarding the nature of the thing concerned. Such circumstances need not necessarily be capable of absolute conviction or inference; but it is sufficient if the circumstances are such creating a cause to believe by chain of probable reasoning leading to the conclusion or inference about the nature of the thing. These two requirements i.e. "knowledge" and "reason to believe"
have to be deduced from various circumstances in the case and the said principle is appreciated in the case of Joti Parshad v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1993 SC 1167. As discussed, the prosecution proved that the accused No.2 and 3 had the knowledge of Ex. P. 11 and Ex. P. 12 and also had reason to believe that the document was a forged one by receipt of huge amount and remained silent .43
KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016
38. It has been held in the case of Mir Nagvi Askari vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 528 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it was observed and held as under:
"A person is said to make a false document or record if he satisfies one of the three conditions as noticed hereinbefore and provided for under the said section.
The first condition being that the document has been falsified with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document has been made by a person, by whom the person falsifying the document knows that it was not made. Clearly the documents in question in the present case, even if it be assumed to have been made dishonestly or fraudulently, had been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that they were made by or under the authority of someone else.44
KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 The second criteria of the section deals with a case where a person without lawful authority alters a document after it has been made. There has been no allegation of alteration of the voucher in question after they have been made. Therefore in our opinion the second criteria of the said section is also not applicable to the present case.
The third and final condition of Section 464 deals with a document, signed by a person who due to his mental capacity does not know the contents of the documents which were made i.e., because of intoxication or unsoundness of mind etc. Such is also not the case before this court for consideration. Indisputably therefore the accused No. 1 made the PW1 to believe that the property mentioned Ex. P. 11 and Ex. P. 12 belongs to the accused No. 2 and 3 and the same was acted upon thede GPA being executed as admitted in Crime No. 45 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 325/2012 by accused No.3 and entered the sale agreement and received the amount as per Ex. P. 17 (statement of account) Therefore, execution of such document by the accused No.1 claiming to be authorized by the accused No. 2 falls under execution of a false document as defined under section 464 of the Code so the accused No.1 has executed false document sale agreement as per Ex. P. 11 and 12, there is a forgery on the part of accused No.2 being the principal of the agent accused No. 1 is established by prosecution. When the forgery is established, then section 468 or section 471 of the Code are attracted. Therefore the accused No. 2 has held guilty of offence under section 468 and 471 of IPC. Accordingly the point No.3 and 4 is answered in affirmative as far as the accused No. 2 is concerned.
39. Point No.1: The first charge framed under section 420 of IPC which reads as under
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property--
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or 46 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." and the term cheating was defined under section 415 of the Penal Code, 1860 which reads as under
"Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".47
KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 Thus, in order to apply Section 420 IPC, namely, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, the ingredients of Section 415 IPC have to be satisfied. To constitute an offence of cheating under Section 415 IPC, a person should be induced, either fraudulently or dishonestly, to deliver any property to any person, or consent that any person shall retain any property. The second class of acts set forth in the section is the intentional inducement of doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do, if she were not so deceived. Thus, the sine qua non of Section 415 IPC is "fraudulence", "dishonesty", or "intentional inducement", and the absence of these elements would debase the offence of cheating and the said principle is appreciated in the case of Iridium India Telecom Limited Vs Motorola Inc reported in (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1201.
40. The learned counsel for accused No.2 and 3 argued that there is no inducement from the accused No.2 and hence section 420 of IPC cannot be invoked. As discussed above in point No. 2, when the acts was done by the agent in the capacity of principal, it would be deemed to have committed by the principal and hence the question of accused No. 2 in person (not necessary) to induce the PW1 to part the money 48 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 for sale of property mentioned in Ex. P. 11 and Ex. P. 12 makes out the case for cheating. Therefore, the accused No. 1 has received the DD and Cash from the PW1 and the same was received in the account of accused No. 2 and 3 way back in September and October 2009 and such being the case the accused No. 2 cannot plead ignorance about the acts of accused No. 1 and hence the accused No.2 is held guilty of Section 420 of IPC and hence the point No.1 is answered in affirmative.
41. Point No.5: The next offence alleged is section 504 of IPC which reads as under
Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.49
KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 Thus, the Section 504 of IPC comprises of the following ingredients viz.
(a) intentional insult,
(b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and
(c) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence.
The intentional insult must be of such an extent that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence however the Ex.P1 and Ex.P1 does not disclose that the PW1 or has led them to commit any offence on hearing the abusive language from the accused or public peace was breached as no complaint was raised for public about commotion to the complaint police on account of abusive language used by the accused. The person who intentionally insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to any other person and such provocation will cause to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, in such a situation, the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied. One of the essential elements constituting the offence is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere 50 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 fact that the accused persons abused the PW1 is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504 IPC and the said principle is appreciated in the case of FIONA SHRIKHANDE v. STATE OF MAHARASTRA AND ANOTHER reported in (2013) 14 SCC 44.
42. It is not the law that the actual words or language should figure in the complaint. One has to read the complaint as a whole and, by doing so, in order to a conclusion that there has been an intentional insult so as to provoke any person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, that is sufficient to bring the complaint within the ambit of Section 504 IPC. It is not the law that a PW1 should verbatim reproduce each word or words capable of provoking the other person to commit any other offence. The background facts, circumstances, the occasion, the manner in which accused is used, the person or persons to whom he are addressed, the time, the conduct of the person who has indulged in such actions are all relevant factors to be borne in mind while examining a complaint lodged for initiating proceedings under Section 504 IPC but on perusal of evidence, the PW1 has not deposed about the ingredients of Section 504 of the IPC. Therefore, in the case on hand, ingredients of Section 504 of the IPC are not made out and hence the point No. 5 is answered in negative.
51KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016
43. Point No. 6: The next charge is under Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. "Criminal intimidation" as defined in Section 503 IPC is as under:
"503.Criminal intimidation.-- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Explanation.--A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section." A reading of the definition of "criminal intimidation" would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened 52 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.'' From the foregoing proposition of law, it is clear that in order to constitute offence of criminal intimidation, there must be threat with intention to cause alarm to the PW1 or to do any act which is not legally bound to do and the said principle is appreciated in the case of MANIK TANEJA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in (2015) PART 7 SCC 423. Though the PW1 stated in the complaint that accused No. 1 caused life threat to the PW1 but when the alleged incident had taken place was not stated specifically in the complaint as per Ex.P1 nor adduced any evidence on to the said aspect and added to which none of witnesses deposed about the alleged incident. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused No. 2 beyond all reasonable doubt thereby this court answers the above point No. 6 in the Negative.
44. Point No.6:- For the foregoing discussion and the findings to the above point No.1 to 5, this court proceeds to pass the following:53
KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 ORDER
i) Acting Under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C, the accused No.2 is convicted for the offences punishable under section 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC
ii) Acting Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C the accused No.2 is acquitted from the offences punishable under section 504, 506 read with Section34 of IPC
iv) Accused No.2 shall be heard on the sentence under Sec. 248(2) of Cr.P.C.
(Typed from the reasons by me in my laptop, corrected and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 25 th day of April, 2026.) DEEPA Digitally signed VEERASWAMY by DEEPA VEERASWAMY (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
54KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 Heard on sentence from APP and the advocate for accused No.2.
:ORDER ON SENTENCE:
1. Counsel for accused has argued again on merits instead of arguing on sentence and prayed for minimum sentence.
2. The learned Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor has replied that considering the magnitude of the fraud, maximum possible sentence be imposed on the accused No.2. However considering the age of accused No.2 and gravity of the offences, this court declines to give any benefits under Probation of Offenders Act, it is appropriate to expedient to pass the following sentence.
ORDER
i) For the offence under Section 465 of IPC accused No.2 is convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 year and shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine accused shall undergo SI for one month.
55KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016
ii) For the offence under Section 468 of IPC accused No.2 is convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 5 years and shall pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine accused shall undergo SI for one month.
iii) For the offence under Section 471 of IPC accused No.2 is convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 years and shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine accused shall undergo SI for one months.
iv) For the offence under Section 420 of IPC accused No.2 is convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 5 years and shall pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine accused shall undergo SI for one months.
v) The substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
56KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016
vi) Under Section 357(2) of the Cr.P.C., the accused No.2 are given time to pay the fine amount till the appeal period.
vii) The bail bond of accused No.2 shall stand cancelled.
viii) Copy of the judgment be given to the accused No.2 at free of cost.
ix) Office to keep this file against split up accused No.1.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by steno, verified and corrected and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 25th day of April, 2026.) Digitally DEEPA signed by VEERASWAMY DEEPA VEERASWAMY (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
57KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for Prosecution :
PW1 : Sri Vinayak Informant
PW2 : Sri Rajendra R.B. Brother of CW1
PW3 : Sri Rangaswamy
PW4 : Smt. Reeta D.G.M.
PW5 : Sri N.Tanveer Ahamed PI
PW6 : Sri Ramesh Kumar PI
PW7 : Sri Amol Sudham Rao PSI
Kale
PW8 : Sri B.K.Narasimha Asst. Commissioner
Naidu (Retd.)
PW9: Sri Gopal.C. PI
Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P1: Complaint PW1 Ex.P2: Cr.No.46/2013
Ex.P3 to C/C of Receipt dtd: 25-09-2009 Ex.P5:
Ex.P6 to C/C of Receipt dtd: 05-10-2009 Ex.P8:58
KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 Ex.P9: C/C of Agreement of Sale dtd:
25-09-2009 Ex.P10: C/C of Agreement of Sale dtd: '' 25-09-2009 Ex.P11: C/C of Agreement of Sale dtd:
13-09-2010 Ex.P12: C/C of Agreement of Sale dtd: '' 25-09-2009 Ex.P13: C/C of HDFC Letter Ex.P14: Agreement to Sell dtd: 07-01- '' 2008 Ex.P15: Agreement to Sell dtd: 07-01- 2008 Ex.P16: Agreement to Sell dtd: 07-01- '' 2008 Ex.P17- Vijaya Bank - Statement of PW4 18: account of accused No.3 Ex.P19: BBMP Letter dtd: 4-12-2013 PW6 Addressed to PI, J.C.Nagara PS Ex.P20: Cr.No.46 of 2013/ PW7 Letter dated 07-07-2013 59 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution:Nil Witnesses examined for the defence:Nil Documents marked on behalf of the defence:Nil DEEPA Digitally signed by DEEPA VEERASWAMY VEERASWAMY VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.60
KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 25-4-2026 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER
i) Acting Under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C, the accused No.2 is convicted for the offences punishable under section 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC
ii) Acting Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C the accused No.2 is acquitted from the offences punishable under section 504, 506 read with Section34 of IPC
iii) Accused No.2 shall be heard on the sentence under Sec.
248(2) of Cr.P.C.
VIII ACJM, B'luru City.
61KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 Orders on Sentence pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER
i) For the offence under Section 465 of IPC accused No.2 is convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 year and shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine accused shall undergo SI for one month.
ii) For the offence under Section 468 of IPC accused No.2 is convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 5 years and shall pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine accused shall undergo SI for one month.
iii) For the offence under Section 471 of IPC accused No.2 is convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 years and shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of 62 KABC030004372016 CC No.101/2016 payment of fine accused shall undergo SI for one months.
iv) For the offence under Section 420 of IPC accused No.2 is convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 5 years and shall pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine accused shall undergo SI for one months.
v) The substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
vi) Under Section 357(2) of the Cr.P.C., the accused No.2 are given time to pay the fine amount till the appeal period.
vii) The bail bond of accused No.2 shall stand cancelled.
viii) Copy of the judgment be given to the accused No.2 at free of cost.
ix) Office to keep this file against split up accused No.1.
VIII ACJM, B'luru City.
63