Bangalore District Court
Pushpa vs V. Sudeep Alais Deepu on 7 October, 2024
KABC030683782021
IN THE COURT OF VII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
Dated this the 7th day of October, 2024
Present : Sri. Puttaraju, B.A.LLB.,
VII Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT U/s 355 OF Cr.P.C.
C.C. No.24828/2021
Complainant : State by : Kodigehalli Police Station.
(By Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor)
V/s
Accused 1: V Sudeep @ Deepu,
Nos. S/o Venkatesh,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at No.55, 1st Cross,
SBI Officer's colony,
Basaveshwaranagar,
Bengaluru.
2. V. Rajath @ Raju,
S/o Venkatesh,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at No.83, 1st Stage,
Krishna Road, SVK Layout,
Near Kempegowda Park,
Basaveshwaranagara,
Bengaluru.
2 C.C. 24828/2021
Date of occurrence of offence 25.06.2021
Date of report of offence 25.06.2021
Name of the Complainant Pushpa
Date of Commencement of 21.06.2023
recording Evidence
Date of Closing of Evidence 19.08.2024
Offences complained of U/s 392 I.P.C.
Opinion of the Judge Accused are
found not guilty.
This chargesheet is submitted by the PI of
Kodigehalli Police Station against the accused No. 1
and 2 for the offence punishable U/s 392 of I.P.C.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on
25.06.2021 at 7.00 a.m., while CW.1 was proceeding
near Raghu Medicals of Lottegollahalli, Bengaluru,
the accused No.1 and 2 came by bike and snatched
her gold chain weighing 23 gram worth of Rs.95,000/-
and thereby the accused have committed the offence
punishable under section 392 of I.P.C.
3 C.C. 24828/2021
3. The accused No.1 and 2 are on bail. As
required u/sec. 207 of Cr.PC, the copies of the charge
sheet papers were furnished to the accused. Charge
was framed for the offences punishable U/s 392 of
I.P.C. and read over and explained to the accused in
the language known to them. Accused have not
pleaded guilty and claimed for trial.
4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution,
the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and got
marked Ex.P.1 to 10. On closure of the evidence on
the side of the prosecution, the statement of the
accused u/sec. 313 Cr.PC came to be recorded, the
accused have denied the incriminating evidence
appearing against them and not chosen to lead defence
evidence.
5. Heard the arguments. Perused the
documents placed on record.
4 C.C. 24828/2021
6. The points that arise for consideration are :
1. Whether the prosecution has proved
beyond all reasonable doubt that
accused have committed the offence
U/s 392 of I.P.C.?
2. What order ?
7. The above points are answered as under :
Point No.1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: As per final order for the following :
REASONS
8. Point No.1 : On 25.06.2021 at 7.00 a.m., the
accused have snatched gold chain of CW.1 weighing 23
grams worth of Rs.95,000/- and thereby accused have
committed aforesaid offences.
9. The Ld. Sr.APP for the state during the course
of argument has submitted that prosecution has
examined police official witnesses as PW.1 to 3, though
the complainant and rest of the witnesses did not turn
up for evidence, the evidence placed by prosecution
through police official witnesses and documentary
5 C.C. 24828/2021
evidence are clearly establishes that the accused have
committed the offense as alleged in the charge sheet.
Therefore, prays to convict the accused by imposing
maximum sentence.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
accused during the course of argument has submitted
that though the prosecution has examined police
official witnesses, the material witnesses that is
complainant and seizure mahazar witnesses did not
turn up to adduce evidence, the non examination of
such material witnesses is fatal to the prosecution
case, in the absence of such evidence, evidence placed
by the prosecution is not sufficient to come to
conclusion that the accused have committed offense as
alleged in the charge sheet. Therefore, the accused are
entitled to benefit of doubt and prays for acquit the
accused.
11. In the light of the submission made above,
on careful perusal of oral and documentary evidence
6 C.C. 24828/2021
placed by the prosecution, no doubt, the complainant
and seizure mahazar witnesses did not turn to adduce
evidence. PW.1 to 3 are police officials and they
supported the case of the prosecution naturally and
deposed in respect of their role during investigation. In
spite of repeated warrants, NBW and proclamation, the
presence of the complainant and seizure mahazar
witnesses is not secured by the prosecution to prove
charge alleged against the accused. In the absence of
evidence of these material evidence, the evidence of
police officials is of no use to prove the guilt of the
accused and the accused cannot be held guilty of the
alleged offence.
12. Therefore, in view of discussion made above,
the considered opinion is of the court that, the
prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. The accused are entitled to
benefit of doubt. Hence, answered the point No.1 in the
Negative.
7 C.C. 24828/2021
13. Point No.2: In view of discussion made on
point No.1 this court proceeds to pass following
ORDER
Acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted of the offence punishable under sections 392 of I.P.C.
Bail bonds of accused and
their surety bonds stand
cancelled after six months from
today.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized by him, revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 7 th day of October, 2024) ( PUTTARAJU ) VII Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution :
PW.1 Anilkumar V
8 C.C. 24828/2021
PW.2 Jameer Avati
PW.3 Jagadeesh K
List of documents marked on behalf of the prosection :
Ex.P.1 Copy of Report
Ex.P.2 Voluntary statement of accused
No.1
Ex.P.3 Voluntary Statement of accused
No.2
Ex.P.4 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.5 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.6 Photo
Ex.P.7 Complaint
Ex.P.8 FIR
Ex.P.9 Police notice
Ex.P.10 Spot Mahazar
List of witnesses examined for the Accused Nil.
List of documents exhibited for the Accused Nil. List of Material Object marked for Nil. prosecution VII Addl.C.J.M., Bengaluru.
9 C.C. 24828/2021Judgment pronounced in the open court.
(vide separate order):
ORDER Acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted of the offence punishable under sections 392 of I.P.C.
Bail bonds of accused and
their surety bonds stand
cancelled after six months from
today.
7Th ACJM, Bengaluru.
10 C.C. 24828/2021
11 C.C. 24828/2021
KABC030620152015
Presented on : 11-09-2015
Registered on : 11-09-2015
Decided on : --
Duration :
IN THE COURT OF
7 ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT Bangalore South,BENGALURU (Presided Over by PUTTARAJU) 12 C.C. 24828/2021 C.C. No.22431/2015 Exhibit No. Complainant(PROSECUTION):
MANJULA Through Police Station Officer , No. 18, AGRAHARA VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK Bangalore SouthBENGALURU 2: VINAY KUMAR Age:
Occupation :No. 18
AGRAHARA VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK 3: VIJAY KUMAR Age:
Occupation :No. 18
AGRAHARA VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALU MANJULA VERSUS Accused:13 C.C. 24828/2021
1:N. V. Parvathamma W/o. A. M. Byregowda Age: 41 Years, R/At Agrahara Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.
2:A. M. Byregowda, age: 48 years, r/at agrahara village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.
14 C.C. 24828/2021 It is the case based on private complaint filed by the complainant against the accused persons for the offences punishabU/s. 120(B), 500, 501 and 502 of IPC
2. Brief case of the prosecution is as under :
It is alleged in the chargesheet that accused -2 representing as GPA holder of complainants had conveyed the property bearing No.18, Katha No.72 of Agrahara Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru, through registered Sale Deed dated 18.12.2009 in favour of his wife accused -1 , by way of fabricating, creating the GPA dated 22.09.2009, even though no such GPA was executed in favour of accused -2 and used the same as genuine. Again both the accused being wife and husband in furtherance of common intention to commit an offence and to knock off the property of 15 C.C. 24828/2021 complainants had created the alleged GPA, accused -2 executed the same in favour of accused -1, in order to make false and unlawful claims over the property thereby cheated the complainants and committed the offences U/s 468, 471, 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
REASONS
10. Point No.1 :
To constitue the offence of cheating the following elements must be present:
1) Dishonest intention
2)False representation or promise
3)Reliance on such representation by the complainant
4)Failur to keep the promise To constitue offence u/s 468 of IPC there must be forgery committed with an intention to cheating deceiving someone.
To constitue offence u/s 406 and 471, there must be entrustment of property or money by someone and he 16 C.C. 24828/2021 used it his own benefit and using forged document as genuine with intention to cheating or deceiving.
1. CW.1 is the complainant examined as PW.1, in her chief examination she deposed that when she was searching purchaser to sell her house property to discharge balance loan amount of Rs.2,70,000 availed by LIC Finance, one Udaykumar introduced brokers Kamatha and Madhukrishna, in turn, they introduced one Manjunath, then Manjunath gave her Rs.5,00,000 by which she repaid loan and get back documents pertaining to her house which were kept in LIC Finanace and handed over it to Manjunath. He told her that he will get loan from bank on the basis of that document, but he has not obtained loan, instead of that, he introduced accused No.1 saying that he will secure loan from Bank because he is well known to managers of several Banks. After 15 days accused No.1 came to her house with Kamatha and 17 C.C. 24828/2021 Madhukrishna, they introduced accused No.1 that he is good person, will secure the loan from Banks, so do what he say. Accordingly, she proceeded with accused to get loan through him, as such, accused No.1 contacted managers of Banks and retrun back saying that no loan will be given by the banks as area of that house property is in block list and she is Muslim community. Then he stated that if she executed sale deed in his name, he will get the loan on that document after that he will execute memorandum of undertaking in her name. Since she was need of money urgently, she agreed the same and executed sale deed. Thereafter, accused No.1 niether returned amount by getting loan nor executed memo of undertaking as he promised. In the month of December 2012 she came to know about some people in the local discussing her house property is came to be sale, then she came to know from the bank that accused availed loan od Rs.20,00,000/- from Sudha 18 C.C. 24828/2021 Co-operative Bank on the that property, then she went to house of accused with xerox copies of loan documents and asked accused No.1 about said loan, for which he stated that yes availed loan because he was financial in difficulty.
PW.1 in the cross examination deposed that she has given complainant against accused No.1 only not against accused No.2 since she had no buisness with accused No.1 and does not know for what reason accused No.2 is impleaded. She studied up to 9 th standard and well aware about english language and she gave the complaint in the english language. The two sale deeds executed by her in favour accused No.1 were also in the same langauge, but she denied the suggestions that she never read said sale deeds, she put her signatures only. Further, she deposed that she has filed O.S.No.1245/2017 against accused No.1, but she is not aware status of said suit, whether it was dismissed or not and petition is filed for restoration of 19 C.C. 24828/2021 said suit. Further, she deposed that she niether stated before sub-registrar nor lodged complaint as to non receipt sale consideration by the accused No.1. She denied the suggestions that she get executed memorandum of undertaking by accused No.1 by forcibly in respect of two house properties. She deposed reagrding herself entering into agreement with Syed Ansar and Ajmal Ahmad and cancelled it and but she did not mention therein as to property sold to accused No.1. She never lodged complaint before police even after came to know that accused No.1 said to have been cheated her. Further she deposed that she gave complaint only when she was called upon by the ACP of Hebbal Police Station.
2. CW.5 is the daughter of PW.1 examined as PW.2. In the chief examination she deposed regarding house properties sold by her mother to accused No.1 beleiving the his say that he will secure the loan if her mother executed sale deed in favour of him and then 20 C.C. 24828/2021 he truned up, thereby cheated her mother, which was told by her mother. In the cross examination she deposed that she heard transaction of her mother with accused only from her mother. She has not stated before police as to Kamath came to her house with accused No.1 and Udaykumar, Bharath Kumar nerrated financial difficulties of her mother to accused No.1 and accused No.1 pacified her mother saying don't worry, will help her mother.
3. CW.25 is another witness said to have been cheated by the accused examined as PW.3. In the examination in chief he deposed that when he was need of money, accused No.1 introduced by Bharathkumar and accused No.1 told that he has no money at present, he will obtain loan and give it, if he executed registered sale deed in his name in respect of site property situated at Meenakshi Layout which stands in the name his wife, then PW.3 believing word of accused No.1 himself and his wife executed 21 C.C. 24828/2021 registered sale deed in favour of accused No.1 without receiving money, but he did not pay loan amount availed from bank and thereby accused No.1 cheated PW.3. In the cross examination version of PW.3 is defferent from what he has stated in chief examination, what he stated that himself and his wife received the sale consideration amount of Rs.13,00,000/- from the accused No.1 and he never stated before sub registrar about non receipt of sale consideration.
4. CW.20 is the another witness said to have been cheated by accused No.1 examined as PW.4. In the examination in chief he deposed that in the year 1977 his father had purchased a site No.170 situated at K G Nagar, Bengaluru, in which he consturcted a house by availing loan and discharged said loan. In the year 2010 when he was need of money to discharge loan availed for buisness from SBI, White Field Branch since he could paid it due to loss of buisness, he was 22 C.C. 24828/2021 searching to prucahser to sell his house property, at that time one Bharathkumar was introduced by Ramappa and he told that value of house property is Rs.80,00,000/. Then Bharathakumar agreed to help in getting loan from bank and informed to secure all documents. As such, PW.4 went to office of Bharathkumar with docuemnts, where Bharathkumar introduced accused No.1 saying that he is his classmate, he will help in getting loan. Accordingly, on 18.07.2010 when he went to house of accused No.1 as called upon by Bharathakumar through phone, wherein the accused No.1 by seeing documents told that within 15 days loan will be arranged, be ready with documents. On 22.07.2010 they came with documents which were typed in english, obatined the signatures of himself, his wife and children and also obtained signature of another son who was in Tumkur Jail in Kidnap case. On 24.07.2010 himself, his wife and children were taken away by the accused No.1 and 23 C.C. 24828/2021 Bharathakumar to sub registrar office of Basavanagudi, where they taken signatures of him, his wife and children and then taken to office of Mahadevappa advocate and get their signatures on some docuements there also and maintained to those documents do not reach him. Again on 17.08.2010 and 18.08.2010 taken them to court saying to make affidavit and finally availed loan by mortgaing property and gave him Rs.10,000, later he came to know from Albert that they availed loan of Rs.45,00,000/- and thereby he was sheated by the accused. In the cross examination PW.4 deposed that he get executed GPA by his wife and children before Notary advocate as per Ex.D.2 so as to execute the sale agreement to accused No.1 agrreing sell house property for consideration of Rs.29,10,000/- as per Ex.D.4 sale agreement and as such, as per Ex.D.4 he received Rs,10,00,000/-, 15,00,000/- from accused No.1. When he failed to execute sale deed as per the terms of agreement, the 24 C.C. 24828/2021 accused No.1 filed suit for specific performance of contract and said suit ended in compromise and he executed sale deed in favour of accused as per the terms of compromise. Further he deposed that cheque given to him at the time of execution of sale deed was for colleteral purpose of loan and accused No.1 taken back said cheque and he has not stated so before police and denied the suggestion that cheque drawn by him.
5. CW.16 examined as PW.5, during chief examination, he deposed that accused No.1 was residing opposite to his house, his mother and wife were not in good terms, the wife of accused No.1 by making use such situation, it was told to his mother by accused No.1 that if she get the documents in respect of house No.1057 situated Jayanagar in the name his wife Leela, daughter-in-law will turn with good term, then his mother executed sale deed in 25 C.C. 24828/2021 favour of Leela and thereby his mother was cheated by the accused No.1.
6. CW.44, CW.45 and 46 are the police officials examined as PW.6, 7 and 13 respectively. These witnesses have deposed that there was inforamtion from CW.50 that accused No.1 and 2 are Bhyraveshwara Lay out and then themselves along with CW.41 to 43, 47 and 48 went to Hennur Lay out at 10.30PM and arrested accused No.1 and 2, brought them to police station. In the cross examination they denied the suggestions that they are deposing false even though they have not went to Hennur Lay out and arrest the accused and seeing the accused before court for the first time.
7. CW.18 is another witness said have been cheated by the accused No.1 examined as PW.8. In the chief examination he deposed that when he came to know the fact from TV and Newspaper that accused No.1 is arrested by the police, he went to police 26 C.C. 24828/2021 station, where ACP informed that how much money should come to whome, then he told by giving lease agreement that accused No.1 told that he will pay Rs.3,500 in every month, beleiving his word, he handed over key of house to accused No.1 and according he gave a cheque for Rs.3,500, but it was bounced, then he lodged complaint before Hebbal Police, they gave NCR. In the cross examiantion, he deposed that the accused No.1 had filed a suit agaisnt him, he has filed written statement by his advocate and order has been passed directing him to hand over the lease documents to accused No.1. He has not taken any steps ragrding cheque bounce and keep quite till arrest of accused and then went to police station and nerrated said facts before police.
8. CW.8 is the witness who introduced the accused No.1 to complinant examined as PW.9. In the chief examination he deposed that when CW.1 was in need of money to discharge loan availed by LIC 27 C.C. 24828/2021 Finance, he introduced one Manjunath through Udaykumar and made sale agreement with him for sale of house property, CW.1 received Rs.5,00,000 by that time, out of that, paid Rs.4,00,000/- to LIC and get released documents and handed over it to Manjunath. Since Manjuantha was not able to adjust money to purchase the property, he introduced the accused No.1 to CW.1 saying that he will clear all transaction of CW.1. Further, when accused came to know the fact that officials of BBMP making galata with CW.1 for not paying tax he paid Rs.50,000/- and after one month CW.1 executed registered sale sale deed as per Ex.P.2 in favour of accused No.1, he signed as witness to sale deed. In the sale deed it was mentioned sale consideration as Rs.52,50,000/-, it was not paid by accused No.1 to CW.1 in his presence, he gave statement before police in this regard. In the cross examination he has stated that he does not know to whome CW.1 executed sale agreement before 28 C.C. 24828/2021 executing sale deed to accused No.1. He identified the sale agreement held between CW.1 and Manjunath as Ex.D.9, sale consideration mentioned as Rs.40,00,000/- therein. He does not know the complaint lodged by CW.1 before Hebbal Police.
9. CW.22 is the another witness said to have been cheated by the accused No.1 examined as PW.10. In the chief examination he deposed that in the year 2012 when he was need of money, he approached accused No.1 since he knows him through real estatge agency. The accused No.1 told him that in order to get the loan from bank he has to execute sale deed in respect of his sites bearing No.65, 74 and 75, before that he will execute MOU in your favour. Accordingly, the accused No.1 executed MOU in his favour and then he executed sale deed in favour of accused No.1 in respect of siad sites on 29.05.2012. Thereafter, when he asked money, the accused No.1 told that he will give in the month of June and gave two cheques for 29 C.C. 24828/2021 Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/-, but those chques have been bounced and then he lodged complaint before Kothnuru Police. Later he came to know that one site No.65 is sold by accused No.1 to one Subramanyshetty for consideration of Rs.75,00,000/- and also came to know that accused No.1 cheated CW.1 when she came to Kothnur Police Station to lodge complaint. He gave statement before police in this regard. In the cross examination PW.10 stated that he doing real estate business and getting commision at 2 percent, he has not stated before sub registrar regarding non receipt of sale consideration by the accused No.1 and not taken any steps in that regard. He denied suggestions that deposing false agaisnt accused.
10. CW.27 is the another witness said to have been cheated from the hands of accused No.1 examined as PW.11. In the chief examination PW.11 deposed that he is Barber by profession, in order to do 30 C.C. 24828/2021 own busines, he availed loan of Rs.12,00,000/- from Uco Bank by mortagaging documents of his brother's house property, but due to loss of buisness he has not repaid loan and then he decided to sell his site situated at Nagarabhavi. His far relation one Venkatesh doing real estate business at R T Nagar, he approached Venkatesh to sell his site, said Venkatesh in turn, introduced accused No.1 saying that he will purchase site. Thereafter, accused No.1 came to site, negotiation was held, finally fixed rate at Rs.2400 per sqaure feet. At the time of registration he asked sale consideration amount of Rs.12,00,000, the accused No.1 and Venkatesh told that money will not be given until registration of sale deed, after completion of registration accused No.1 by showing cheque for Rs.50,00,000/- has stated that he will get money in next week and pay, when he refused, Venkatesh undertakes that he will pay money. Later when he contacted accused No.1 through phone, the accused 31 C.C. 24828/2021 No.1 threatened by saying that he is having gun and he will finish you, then he lodged complaint before police and given statement before police as stated above. In the cross examiantion, PW.11 stated that he has not taken any steps regarding non receipt of sale consideration by the accused No.1. He does not know some clash between venkatesh and accused No.1. He denied the suggestion that lodged false complaint on the instigation of Venkatesh.
11. CW.47 is the police official who deputed to serve the notice to the witnesses examined as PW.12. In the chief examination he deposed that as per the directions of P I he went to the spot to serve the notice to witnesses, but they were not in their address, then he recorded the statement of nieghbourer and report it to P I as per Ex.P.3. In the cross examination he denied the suggestion that prepared Ex.P.3 at police station.
32 C.C. 24828/2021
12. CW.49 is SHO examined as PW.14. In the chief examination he deposed that on 31.07.2012 at 4.30PM he received the complaint as per Ex.P.1 from CW.1 and registered the case as per Ex.P.4. In the cross examination he stated that he has not made any enquiry regarding who has written the complain, delay for lodging complaint and not mentioned the reason for delay in column 3(c) of FIR and denied the suggestions that himself prepared Ex.P.1 at station.
13. CW.33 and 31 are the witnesses to the seizer mahazar examined as PW.15 and 18 respectively. In the chief examination they deposed regarding seizer of 32 files from the house of accused No.1 by the police offiicials on 18.12.2012 by drawing seizer mahazar as per Ex.P.5 and they identified 32 seized files. In the cross examination PW.15 has stated that when he was at Hebbal bus stand police took him to police station, he was there at police station from 9.30AM to 10.30 AM, where the police have enquiring the accused No.1. 33 C.C. 24828/2021 He does not know the boundary of sopt from where 32 files have been siezed. He does know those files. He denied the suggestions that deposing false evidence though he has not went to spot and police have not siezed files in his presence. In the cross examination PW.18 has denied suggestion that deposing false evidence though he has not went to spot and police have not siezed files in his presence.
14. CW.37 is the Sub-registrar, Basavanagudi examined as PW.16. In the chief examination she deposed that she received a letter from Hebbal Police Station seeking certified copies document No.1408/2010-2011 dated 07.03.2011 and document No.9/2011-2012 dated 05.04.2011 and accordingly she issued certified copies of said documents as per Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.6. In the cross examination she stated that she made registration of Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.6 after enquiry of both parties. The complainant has not stated before her that she has not received sale 34 C.C. 24828/2021 considerationat and registered those documents only after consent of the complainant.
15. CW.50 is the investigating officer examined as PW.19. In the examination in chief he deposed that he written a letter to Sub-registrar, Shanthinagar seeking ceritified copies of documents registered in the year 2011-2012 as per Ex.P.10. He has given notice to witnesses to sale deed and gift deed calling them for enquiry. He has also given notices to witnesses as per Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.23. CW.39 who deputed to serve the notice to witnesses reported as per Ex.P.3 stating that said witnesses are not residing in the adresses mentioned in the notice. He has seized relevant docuements from accused on basis of his valuntary statemen and obtained documents from manager of Sudha Co-operative Bank, Shanthinagar Sub-registrar and recorded the statements of witnesses and after completion of investigation has filed charge sheet against the accused. In the cross examination, out of 35 C.C. 24828/2021 32 files siezed during investigation, file No.1 having 1 to 34 pages which contains payment receipt of Bharathkumar, sale agreement dated 27.10.2010 executed by accused No.1 to Arindraswamy, sale agreement held between accused No.1 and Bharathkumar and another sale agreement held between them and he identifed said documents and same has been marked as MO-1. File No.2 having 1 to 44 pages which contains sale deed executed by S Lakshminarayana to accused No.1, original sale deed executed by Harinath to S Lakshminarayana, BBMP Khatha Extract, E C, Tax paid receipts and RTC. He idenitified said documenst and same has been marked as MO-2. File No.3 having 1 to 67 pages which contains sale deed executed by Krishnareddy to accused No.1, zerox copies of GPA and affidavit, sale agreement and other papers. He identified said documents and same has been marked as MO-3. File No.4 having 1 to 75 pages which contains documents 36 C.C. 24828/2021 relating to property of Muniyappa such as zerox copies of sale deed, MR, EC, RTC, PAN Card and order of Land Acquisition officer. He identified said documents and same has been marked as MO-4. File No.5 having 1 to 7 pages which contains documents relating to property of Noor Pasha. He identified said documents and same has been marked as MO-5. File No.6 named as Neelasandra Sale agreement having 1 to 24 pages which contains three sale agrrement of various dates relating to property. He identified said documents and same has been marked as MO-6. File No.7 named as Margadarshi Co-operative Bank and Yelahanka Police Complaint having 1 to 4 zerox copies of complaints and NCRs. He identified said documents and same has been marked as MO-7. File No.8 named as Venkatesh's file having 1 to 40 pages which contains documents relating to property of Venkatesh such as zerox copies of sale deed, indemnitiy bond, tax paid receipts, Khatah Extracts. He identified said documents and 37 C.C. 24828/2021 same has been marked as MO-8. File No.9 named as Suguna D/o Ramareddy, Neelasandra property having 1 to 32 pages which contains documents, such as zerox copies of sale deed, Gift deed, GPA, etc,. He identified said documents and same has been marked as MO-9. File No.10 having 1 to 44 pages which contains documents, such as zerox copies of sale deed, sale agreement, tax paid receipts. He identified said documents and same has been marked as MO-10. File No.11 named as Krishnreddy having two pages which contains sale agreement. He identified said documents and same has been marked as MO-11. File No.12 named as MCB loan full paid having 1 to 25 pages which contains documents, such as receipts, deposits of title deed. He identified said documents and same has been marked as MO-12. File No.13 named as Varthur Property sale agreement having 1 to 135 pages which contains documents, such as zerox copies of GPA, MR and plaint in OS No.876/2012. He identified 38 C.C. 24828/2021 said documents and same has been marked as MO-13. Further, in the same manner, he identifed documents contained in File No.15 to 31 and same have marked as MO-15 to MO-31.
16. In the further chief examination, he identifed file No.32 and deposed regarding siezer of said 32 documents in the presence of CW.31, 32, 33 by drawing mahazar. Further deposed regarding statements of witnesses recorded by him on various dates, memo of undertaking obtained from Sub- registrar as per Ex.P.26. In the further cross examination, he stated that he has seen Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.6 sale deed, in which it is not stated that sale consideration is not paid by accused No.1, but the complainant in her complaint has stated that she has been cheated by the accused. He denied the suggestions that during investigation even though he came to know that accused have not committed any 39 C.C. 24828/2021 offence as alleged without verifiying the document filed false charge sheet against the accused.
17. In defence side, the accused No.1 examined as DW.1. In the chief examination, he deposed that in the year 2011 CW.1 told him that she intended to go to Bubai along with her family member by selling south street and central street property. Both properties are having seperate sale deed, and as such, negotiation was held and fixed value to south street property as Rs.52,50,000/-, both of them entered into sale agreement, he paid Rs.50,000/- as advance sale consideration to CW.1 and paid remaining balance sale consideration at the time of execution of sale deed. He further purchased central street property of CW.1 for consideration of Rs.74,00,000/-. Thereafter, CW.1 started demand more money saying that she sold said properties for lessor amount and made galata, in this regard he lodged complaint before police which was registered as Crime No.121/2011, even after lodging 40 C.C. 24828/2021 compaliant CW.1 has continued her attitude and finally with help of family members kidnapped accused No.1 and police have filed B report in the said crime. After kidnap, obtained signatures of accused No.1on Memo of Undertaking, he nerrated the same to Mallikarjuna advocate who came with CW.1, there were 10 rowadies along with CW.1 while getting signature on MOU. Further, deposed when he was in jail, CW.1entered into sale agreement with Syed Ansar and Ajmal Ahmed on 25.04.2015 agreeing to sell the said properties. The suit filed by CW.1 in O S No.4480/2012 against him has been dismissed. He knows V R Rajendra, he purchased the Kottigehara property belongs to Prabha who is wife of Rajendra from her for consideration of Rs.13,50,000/-, except this transaction even though nothing is there with Rajendra, he filed compaint and same is pending. He deposed regarding purchased the property of Leelavathi in the name his wife Leela for consideration 41 C.C. 24828/2021 of Rs.17,00,000/-, suit filed by her son Kumar questioning said sale deed as O S No.1949/2006, preferred RFA No.607/2021 before Hon'ble High Court questioning said judgment passed in the said suit Hand RFA No.1296/2021 filed against Kumar. The documents relating to said proceedings have been marked as Ex.D.10 to 19. In the cross examination, he stated that in the year 2011 he paid tax, he is not remember whether sale consideration amount paid to CW.1 is mentioned in the income tax return or not. The proceedings initiated against him are relating cheating committed by him. He was having that much of sale consideration amount of Rs,1,22,50,000 and prodcued the documents in that regard. He denied the suggestions that he has made fraud to several persons as decived to CW.1.
18. One Mallikarjuna advocate on behalf defence side, examined as DW.2. In the chief examination he deposed that Rehamathull advocate of CW.1 told that 42 C.C. 24828/2021 he need to register MOU pertaining to both properties and informed to come to sub-registrar office of Neelasandra. Accoridngly, he went to sub registrar office on 15.09.2012, wherein, he signed as drafted by me on the draft copy of MOU which is already prepared and broaugh by said Rehamathulls after reading its contents. Thereafter, by seeing wound under the eyes of accused No.1 asked him, what happened, he stated that he was kidnapped to get the execution of MOU register and lodged complaint before Hebbal Police in this regard. In the cross examination, he stated that he is having 24 years practice as an advocate, before going to draft any documents verification is required, but he has not verified MOU. He denied suggestions that wihtout verifying document mere signing as drafted by me is an offence and he is deposing false evidence to help the accused No.1 since he is representing the accused No.2 in this case. 43 C.C. 24828/2021
19. The learned counsel appearing for the compalinant has argued that........
20. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for accused No.1 has argued that........................................................................... .............
It is further argued that, as per Ex.D.10 CW.1 has filed suit O S No.1245/2017 against accused No.1 seeking cancellation both sale deeds and made a Deed of Decleration as per Ex.D.12. Ex.P.26 Memo of Undertaking is the document said have been executed by the accused No.1 is false, that documents has been get registered by the accused No.1 forcibly by kdnapping, in this regard the accused No.1 lodged complainat before police as crime No.121.2011. If really CW.1 get executed the MOU by the accused, there was no necessity to file a suit O S No.1245/2017 as per Ex.D.10 against accused No.1 seeking cancellation both sale deeds and made a Deed of 44 C.C. 24828/2021 Decleration as per Ex.D.12. Moreover MOU is not discussed in the said suits. The documents palced by the accused No.1 regarding purchase of properties would shows that he had sufficient fund to purchase properties of CW.1 under Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.6 and more over sub registrar clearly deposed that after consent of CW.1 proceeded to register the documents. Further, regarding seizer of documents by PW.19 under seizer mahazar it is argued that PW.15 and 15 are deposed in support of prosecution case, the version stated in their cross examination is contridictory to each other and not corroberated with evidence of PW.19 and evidence of these witnesses will not help the prosecution case.
21. Upon careful perusal of material on record in the light of submission made by the learned counsel for the parties reveals that admittedly, ...............................
22. The complainant executed Ex.P.2 sale deed in respect south street property to accused No.1 on 45 C.C. 24828/2021 07.03.2011, after that on 02.04.2011 she executed another sale deed Ex.P.6 in respect of central street property, beleiving the words accused No.1 that he will obtain loan from bank and give money, the gap between two sale deed is nearly one month. At this stage it would be petinent to mention here that if a common man is need of money urgently and for that he executed document, his immeidate response would be ask money from whos favour to document is executed. In this case, no material on record to show that the complaiant neither approached accused No.1 seeking money immediately after execution of first sale deed nor even after execution of second sale deed. Further, second sale deed was executed on 02.04.2011 and the date of complaint lodged by the complainant is 25.07.2012 and complaint is registered on 31.07.2012,, so after lapse of one year complaint is filed and moreoever as deposed by the CW.1 she lodged complaint only when she was instructed by the 46 C.C. 24828/2021 Assistant Cmmissioner of Police to come to Police station and lodge compalint not valuntarily. It makes clear from the evidence of CW.1 lodged complaint as per the instruction of Assistant Commissioner of Police. Beside, no explaination for inordinate delay of more than one year by the prosecution.
Further, admittedly Ex.P.1 complaint is in the langauge of english written by the complainant, the evidence of CW.1 has been recorded through the translater translating from english to Kannada, so she is very well in english. In the cross examination she deposed that she did not read the contents of Ex.P.26 sale deed since it was in english langaue. Therefore, in view of discussion above the evidence of CW.1 is doubtfull.
The evidence of PW.3 to 5, PW.8 to 11 and 16 is related to transaction held by them with accused No.1, such transactions are appears to be civil in nature and not related to the facts of this case, in the absance of 47 C.C. 24828/2021 reliable and cogent evidence to show that said witnesses have been cheated by accused arguemnt of learned counsel for the complainant that said witnesses are cheated from the hands of accused No.1 and his conduct shows he is habitual offence in the same nature of offence of this case cannot be acceptable, it is therefore, evidence of these witnesses will not help the prosecution case to prove nexus between transaction held between accused and complainant.
The evidence of PW.15 and 18 relates to Ex.P.5 siezer mahazar in their presence of PW.19 seized 32 documents from the house of accused No.1, evidence of these witnesses is contridictory to each other and not corraberate with evidence of IO as argued by the learned counsel for the accused No.1.
The evidence of PW.12, PW.14 pertaining to registration of case as per Ex.P.4 FIR by receiving the Ex.P.1 complaint from CW.1 and deputed to serve the 48 C.C. 24828/2021 notice to witnesses, in turn reported it PW.19, does not help to prove the offence levelled against accused. The evidence of PW.19 I O pertaining to investigation of the case submitted charge sheet. The documents seized from the house of accused during investigation are related to transaction held with accused No.1 by the names whome referred in the said documets and said transaction are appears to be civil in nature. The properties are situated at Neelasandra within the jurisdiction of Vivek Nagar Police Station and crime is registered at Hebbal Police Station, it is not the case of prosecution that tarnsaction held within the limit of Hebbal Police Station and no explaination by the IO in this regard, which creates doubt.
So far accused No.2 is concern except evidence on record that documents were in her house, nothing on record to show invlovement of accused No.2. The Memo Of Undertaking is executed by accused No.1 to the complainant in respect of two house porperties 49 C.C. 24828/2021 along with other properties on 15.09.2012. The accused No.1 lodged complaint before Hebbal Police on 01.05.2012 alleging that complainant and her family member are threatened his life by saying that they will kidnap him, which is registered as per Ex.D.11 FIR. Thus it is clear from the said documents that complaint is lodged before 4 to 5 months early to execute MOU assuming his kidnap, the version of the accused No.1 relying on said evidence that he was kidnapped and get executed MOU is not beleivable. Therefore, in view discussion made above, the considered opinion is of the court that the prosecution has been able to prove the offences alleged agaisnt the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt shoud be given to accused. Hence, this court has answered the above point in the Negative.
18. Point NO.2:- In the result, the following order is passed.
50 C.C. 24828/2021 ORDER Acting U/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 and 2 are hereby
acquitted for the offence punishable U/s............. of I.P.C.
Bail bonds of accused and their surety bonds stand cancelled after six months from today under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized by him, revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 18 th day of June, 2024) ( PUTTARAJU ) VII Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the Complainant :
PW.1 Manjula PW.2 Munishyamappa
List of documents marked for the Complainant :
Ex.P.1 Reply to the legal notice
51 C.C. 24828/2021
Ex.P.2 and 3 Postal receipt and
acknowledgment
Ex.P.4 Death Statute (Uyilu)
Ex.P.5 Purchase Deed
Ex.P.6 Death Certificate of Papanna
Ex.P.7 Death Certificate of A.P.
Shivanna
Ex.P.8 Copy of OS No.1409/2012
Ex.P.9 Copy of Written Statement of OS
No.1409/2012
List of witnesses examined for the Accused DW1: Chandrashekar.
List of documents exhibited for the Accused Ex.D1: GPA List of material objects marked for the Nil. Prosecution VII Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru.
52 C.C. 24828/2021 53 C.C. 24828/2021 KABC030620152015 54 C.C. 24828/2021 Presented on : 11-09-2015 Registered on : 11-09-2015 Decided on : -- Duration : IN THE COURT OF
7 ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT Bangalore South,BENGALURU (Presided Over by PUTTARAJU) C.C. No.22431/2015 Exhibit No. Complainant(PROSECUTION):
MANJULA Through Police Station Officer , No. 18, AGRAHARA VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK Bangalore SouthBENGALURU 2: VINAY KUMAR Age:
Occupation :No. 18
AGRAHARA VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK 3: VIJAY KUMAR Age:
Occupation :No. 18
AGRAHARA VILLAGE 55 C.C. 24828/2021 YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALU MANJULA VERSUS Accused:56 C.C. 24828/2021
1:N. V. Parvathamma W/o. A. M. Byregowda Age: 41 Years, R/At Agrahara Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.
2:A. M. Byregowda, age: 48 years, r/at agrahara village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.
57 C.C. 24828/2021 It is the case based on private complaint filed by the complainant against the accused persons for the offences punishabU/s. 120(B), 500, 501 and 502 of IPC