Karnataka High Court
Mr M Natarajan vs The State By on 24 June, 2022
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5015/2022
BETWEEN:
MR. M.NATARAJAN
S/O LATE MUTHUSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT No.59A, MNR COMPLEX
BANASWADI MAIN ROAD
BUS STAND ROAD, OPPOSITE TO
STEEL FACTORY, BANASWADI
BENGALURU - 560 043. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI C.H.SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE BY
KARNATAKA POLICE
BY BANASWADI POLICE STATION
BENGALURU
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CID, CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE UNIT
ARAMANE ROAD, BENGALURU
REP. BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.530/2021 OF BANASWADI
P.S., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/Ss.417,420,465,468,471,447,120B OF IPC, WHICH IS
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ACMM, BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.530/2021 registered by Banaswadi Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 465, 468, 471, 447, 120B of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that a case has been registered against this petitioner and also other accused persons. Based on the complaint of one Sindhu, who had lodged a complaint against this petitioner and other 3 accused persons that all of them have indulged in creating fictitious documents. Based on the fictitious documents approached the Court and obtained an eviction order in S.C.No.1433/2018 and after filing the suit, the matter was compromised on 20.11.2018 and also filed an execution petition to execute the order. Hence, the complainant has lodged a complaint. Based on the complaint, a case has been registered.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this petitioner is no way connected to the said Act and he is not having any knowledge about creation of any document or filing of any case and he has not executed any power of attorney in favour of the person, who claims to be the power of attorney holder and this petitioner never indulged in any such acts. The petitioner is ready to co-operate with the Investigating Officer for investigation in the matter and obey the conditions that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court. The learned counsel also would submit that nothing is placed on record by the prosecution that this petitioner has executed the power of attorney or any of the case has been filed by him. 4
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that the documents are created i.e., Khatha Certificate allegedly issued by the BBMP., and on the strength of the said created document, a case was also filed and obtained an order of eviction compromising the matter with the set up tenant and also execution petition is also filed. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State would submit that in view of the direction given by this Court in the writ petition that there was a scam in the Small Causes Court, the cases are registered and the matter is still under investigation.
6. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, no doubt, the complaint is given by one Sindhu, making an allegation against this petitioner that a case is filed for eviction based on the fictitious document. The very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had not indulged in any such acts and he had also not filed any case before the Small Causes Court and also not executed any power of attorney. No doubt, a case 5 is filed in the name of this petitioner, in order to show that he had executed the power of attorney, no document is placed by the prosecution. Apart from that, no document has been filed for having filed a petition by this petitioner.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the name of this petitioner, the proceedings were initiated. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State also would submit that notice was given by an Advocate to accused No.4 and a case was filed by accused No.5 and accused No.6 and another advocate defended the fictitious documents in the said case and all of them joined together in compromising the matter. When there is no any material before the Court that this petitioner had signed the document of any power of attorney or any HRC case and making use of his name as claiming as owner cannot be a ground to detain this petitioner in the custody for further investigation. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., subject to the condition that he has to appear before the Investigating Officer to assist him for investigation. 6
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused No.1 shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.530/2021 registered by Banaswadi Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 465, 468, 471, 447, 120B of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation 7 and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the Investigating Officer till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier.
(v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 30th of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge-sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
Sd/-
JUDGE cp*