Bangalore District Court
Ms Varun Souharda Credit vs K. Mamatha And Others on 11 March, 2026
1
C.C.No.32580/2014
KABC030839002014
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXVII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY.
Dated this the 11th day of March, 2026.
Present: Sri SYED ARFATH IBRAHIM M., B.A.L, L.L.B.,
XXXVII ACJM., BENGALURU.
C.C. No.32580/2014
JUDGMENT UNDER SEC.355 OF CR.P.C.,
Complainant : Varun Souhardha Co-operative
Society Ltd.,
No.617, 4th Cross, 5th Main,
Hanumanthanagar,
Bangalore - 560 019.
Rep. By Sri Nagendra Kumar
Vs/-
Accused : 1. Ms. K.Mamatha
M/s. Balaji Garments
No.15A/16, 16th Main Road
Behind Cauvery Garden
Srigandakaval
Sunkadakatte
Magadi Main Road,
Bangalore - 560 091.
2. Sri N. Govindappa
Major, R/at No.G-1038, 7th Cross
HAL colony
Bangalore 560 037.
2
C.C.No.32580/2014
3. Sri Thimmaiah
Major, R/at No.13/14, 6th Cross, 8th
F Cross, Lakshman nagar
Hegganahalli Cross, Sunkadakatee,
Vishwaneedam post
Bangalore - 560 091.
Also at:
Sri Thimmaiah
The Karnataka State Co-Operative
Apex Bank Limited
No.1, Pampamahakavi Road
Chamarajpet,
BANGALORE - 560 018.
Date of offence : 11-06-2013
Offences complained : U/s.467,468,471,420 of IPC.
of
Plea : Accused No.1 to 3 Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused No.1 to 3 Acquitted
Date of Order : 11-03-2026
*****
The complainant has filed complaint U/s.200 of Cr.P.C.
against the accused persons for the offences punishable
467,468,471,420 of IPC.
2.The brief facts of the case of complainant is as under:-
The accused No.1 approached the complainant for loan to
purchase a Site stating that she is proceeding to purchase the
property on the Market value of Rs.30,00,000/- and she has an
3
C.C.No.32580/2014
average monthly expenses of Rs.20,000/- . Thereafter she applied
for loan of Rs.15,00,000-00 on security of site bearing house plot
No.57, formed out of Sy.No.105/1, Kacharakanahalli, Kasaba hobli,
Bangalore, North Tq., the accused No.2 stood as a co-obligant and
accused No.3 joined as guarantor for the purpose of entering into a
loan transaction. On 22-02-2012 they have executed a loan
agreement wherein it is categorically stated that the accused No.1
intended to enter into a loan transaction by creating an equitable
mortgage by depositing of title document pertaining to the
immovable property. While executing the registered deed of
memorandum of deposit of title deeds the accused persons have
given attested true copies of the re-survey map pertaining to
Sy.No.105/1 issued by ADLR and while accepting the documents it
was found that there is no existence of plot at all and the
documents did not pertain to the property in respect of which
equitable mortgage has been created. It is noticed that the
absolute sale deed under which the accused are stated to have
purchased the property is a non-existing property and thereby
accused have committed fraud misrepresentation and concealment
of true facts from the complainant. The documents produced by
the accused are created documents and while inspection of the spot
4
C.C.No.32580/2014
it was noticed that the property was not available so it is nothing
but fraud, played upon the complainant for acceptance of title
documents which does not relate to the property. That on 11-06-
2013 the complainant issued a notice to the accused, which is
received by the accused but they failed to rectify or remedy the
fraud committed by them. The fraud has been played by the
accused by creating concocted, created and fabricated documents.
Hence, this complaint.
3. After filing the private complaint this court took
cognizance for the alleged offences and posted the matter for sworn
statement. Later on after recording the sworn statement, this court
has passed order on 28-11-2014 and ordered to register a criminal
case against the accused to proceed against the accused and
issued process. In response to the process, the accused No.1 to 3
appeared through the counsel and they were enlarged on bail.
4. Before framing charge, an opportunity of being heard was
provided to the accused No.1 to 3 and after hearing them and the
complainant and as there were sufficient materials, the charge for
the aforesaid offences were framed and same was read over to the
accused No.1 to 3 in the language known to them, to which, the
5
C.C.No.32580/2014
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the
matter was set down for prosecution evidence.
5. In order to prove the charges, the Secretary of the Society
has examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P33
documents. The statement of accused as required U/s. 313 of
Cr.P.C. is recorded. In which the accused have denied the
incriminating circumstances appeared against them. The accused
No.1 to 3 have been examined as DW 1 to 3 and got marked
Ex.D.1 to Ex.D9 documents in support of their defence.
6. Heard arguments on both sides. I have Perused the
materials on record. The learned counsel for accused No. 1 to 3
has submitted written arguments and also additional written
arguments praying to acquit the accused since accused have not
committed any of the alleged offences.
7. The following point arise for my determination :-
1) Whether the complainant proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that the Accused No.1 to 3 with a
common intention to cheat the complainant society had
applied and taken loan of Rs.15,00,000/- from the
society and created a equitable mortgage on a non
existing property, created and forged documents in
respect of the property and failed to repay the loan
amount and thereby the accused has committed the
offences punishable u/s. 467,468,471,420 of IPC?
6
C.C.No.32580/2014
2) What Order?
8. My finding to the above points are as under:-
Point No.1.......In the Negative.
Point No.2.......As per final Order, for the following :-
REASONS
9. POINT No.1:- It is the fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that the prosecution will have to establish its case
beyond all reasonable doubt. In order to prove the same, S.J.
Nagendrakumar, Secretary has been examined as PW-1 and got
marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P33 documents.
10.P.W.1 Nagendra Kumar S G, Secretary of Varun
Souhardha Credit Co operative society limited has deposed in his
examination in chief that he knows the accused No.1 to 3. The
accused No.1 had applied for loan of Rs.15 lakhs with Varun
Souhardha Credit Co operative society limited to purchase site.
Along with application, she submitted related documents
concerning to plot No.57 and executed Loan Agreement. Accused
No.1 Mortgaged the documents and entered into Mortgage
agreement. Accused No.2 stood as Co-obligant and Accused No.3
7
C.C.No.32580/2014
stood as guarantor. PW-1 further deposed that after verifying the
documents as per accused No.1 request he sanctioned Rs.15
lakhs, but the accused No.1 did not repay the same. Later they
came to know that the accused have taken loan on a non existing
property by cheating the Bank. As accused have cheated the
Society, he has issued notice to accused but the accused did not
reply. During his cross examination he admits that the accused are
the members of his society. He also admits that they had visited the
spot and Anand engineering and Consultancy had also submitted
the valuation report to the property. To a suggestion that in the
event of default there is provision to take possession of the property
the PW1 deposed that such provision is there but the accused had
submitted false documents.
11. To rebut the evidence of complainant the accused No.1
examined herself as DW1 and deposed in her chief examination
that Shankarlingaiah had told her that he would get her a site. She
has deposed that she does not know the owner of the site
purchased by her. She has deposed that she had paid installments
towards the loan for a period of 1 year. She deposed that in respect
of the loan she has paid Rs.3 lakhs to Naveen and another Rs. 2
8
C.C.No.32580/2014
lakhs through others. After taking the loan Naveen showed her the
site. When she saw the site there was a shed in the site. Later she
stopped paying the loan amount. During her cross examination she
admits that she had taken a loan of Rs. 15 lakhs from the society.
She states that after taking loan she had paid installments for a
year. She admits that believing Shankarlingaiah she had
purchased the site. She admits that before purchasing the site she
had not seen the site.
12. Further Accused No.2 was examined as DW2. He in his
chief examination has deposed that Ramesh Babu had taken him
and got his signatures on a document as guarantor. During his
cross examination he admits that the signature in Ex-P3 is his
signature. He admits that he had signed to the loan taken by
Accused No.1.
13. Further Accused No.3 was examined as DW3. He in his
chief examination has deposed that he had not stood as guarantor
to any loan in the society. He had received notice from the court of
Assistant Registrar.
9
C.C.No.32580/2014
The above being the evidence on record it would be appropriate to
go through the entire material on record to see whether the
complainant has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
14. In this case before going into the crux of the matter it
would be appropriate to cull out some admitted facts in order to
focus on the real crux of the case. In this case the Accused No.1
admits that she had applied for a loan and also admits that she
was sanctioned loan of Rs. 15 lakhs. She also admits that after the
loan being sanctioned she purchased the property as per sale deed
marked as Ex-P11. She in her chief examination admits that she
has paid installments for a year towards the loan. Though the
accused have taken contention that they had not applied for loan
and that they were cheated by Shankarlingaiah, but the admission
of the Accused No.1 regarding taking loan and repaying the loan
installments for a year clearly shows that she had voluntarily taken
loan and was paying the loan amount as per agreement. If at all
she was cheated by Shankarlingaiah she would not have paid the
installments. Hence, the contentions of the accused in respect of
applying for loan, taking loan, getting sale deed registered and
repaying of loan cannot be considered as the accused have failed to
10
C.C.No.32580/2014
show that they were cheated by Shankarlingaiah. Further the
documents produced by the PW1 clearly establishes that the
Accused No.1 to 3 jointly applied for a loan and have taken loan in
the name of the Accused No.1 and utilized the loan amount to
purchased a site.
15. Now coming to the crux of the case is concerned, the
counsel for the complainant has argued that the accused No.1 to 3
with an intention to cheat the society had applied and taken loan
on a non existing site by creating and forging documents.
16. On the other hand the learned counsel has argued that
the accused herein a real victims of real estate fraud which is
prevalent in the society werein innocent persons as targeted and
cheated. It is also argued that the accused herein cannot be
convicted in this case as per Sec. 300 of Cr.P.C as the accused No.1
is already convicted in cheque bounce case on the same facts and
documents which are before this court. On this point he has relied
on a judgment reported in (2011) 2 SCC 703 Kolla Veera Raghav
Rao vs Gorantla Venkateswara Rao and another. It was argued
that in order to attract the offence of cheating there should be
11
C.C.No.32580/2014
intention to defraud the complainant from the inception i.e., from
the date of applying for loan by the accused persons. As the
accused No.1 was paying amount as per the agreement for a period
of 1 year there was no intention for the accused to cheat the
complainant. It was argued that only after coming to know that
they have been cheated into buying a non existing site the accused
No.1 had stopped to pay the amount. In this regard the counsel for
the accused has relied on judgment in Crl Ptn No. 4346/2022
D.D. dated 15-07-2022 Sri. Vilas Deore vs State of Karnataka
and another.
17. Now let me analyze each of the contention taken by the
accused separately to come to a fair conclusion. It is argued that
the accused herein cannot be convicted in this case as per Sec.
300 of Cr.P.C as the accused No.1 is already convicted in cheque
bounce case on the same facts and documents which are before
this court. On this point he has relied on a judgment reported in
(2011) 2 SCC 703 Kolla Veera Raghav Rao vs Gorantla
Venkateswara Rao and another. It was contended that Accused
No.1 is already convicted in C C No. 2145/2014 for the offence
punishable U/Sec. 138 of N.I.Act. I have gone through the above
12
C.C.No.32580/2014
judgment produced by the learned counsel for the accused. As the
document is a certified copy of the judgment passed by a
competent court this court can take Judicial Notice of the same
and rely on the same. In fact the complainant also admits about
the conviction order. On going through the judgment it can be seen
that the complainant had filed the above case based on the same
facts and same documents and got the accused No.1 convicted. In
the above judgment relied by the accused it is held as hereunder;
"Thus, it can be seen that Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C.
is wider than Article 20(2) of the Constitution.
While, Article 20(2) of the Constitution only states
that 'no one can be prosecuted and punished for
the same offence more than once', Section 300(1) of
Cr.P.C. states that no one can be tried and
convicted for the same offence or even for a
different offence but on the same facts."
18. From the above judgment it is clear that once an accused
is convicted on similar facts and based upon same set of
documents then the bar U/Sec. 300 of Cr.P.C applies. Sec. 300 of
Cr.P.C clearly states that during a period in which a conviction or
acquittal is in force the same person cannot be tried for the same
offence nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a
different charge from the one made against him or her previously.
The above judgment is aptly applicable to facts and circumstances
13
C.C.No.32580/2014
of this case. The accused No.1 is already convicted on the same set
of facts and documents and now again on same set of facts and
documents she cannot be convicted for a different charge. It can be
argued that the above judgment is not applicable to the accused
No.2 and 3 as no previous conviction is recorded against them. But
the fact remains that they are only co-obligant and guarantor to the
loan and they were never beneficiaries of the loan amount. The
contract between the accused No.2 and 3 was purely in the nature
of civil and not does not give rise to criminal proceedings. Hence,
this court holds that the above judgment is aptly applicable to the
facts and circumstance of this case.
19. It was argued that in order to attract the offence of
cheating there should be intention to defraud the complainant from
the inception i.e., from the date of applying for loan by the accused
persons. As the accused No.1 was paying amount as per the
agreement for a period of 1 year there was no intention for the
accused to cheat the complainant. It was argued that only after
coming to know that they have been cheated into buying a non
existing site the accused No.1 had stopped to pay the amount. In
this regard the counsel for the accused has relied on judgment in
14
C.C.No.32580/2014
Crl Ptn No. 4346/2022 D.D. dated 15-07-2022 Sri. Vilas Deore
vs State of Karnataka and another. I have gone through the
above judgment. There are two aspects which are concentrated in
the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the accused
herein. First is when a breach of civil agreement happens only civil
liability arises and not criminal liability and second is that the
basic ingredient for offence of cheating is the intention of the
accused to cheat a person from the inception. In respect of the first
aspect is concerned, from the averments it is clear that the accused
had taken loan and agreed to repay the loan in EMI's. The accused
later defaulted in payment. This clearly shows that there was just a
breach of terms and conditions of a loan agreement. Such breach
only gives rise to civil liability and does not make the accused
persons liable for criminal liability. Now coming to the second
aspect is concerned the accused No.1 had availed the loan and paid
the installments as per schedule for a period of 1 year. Only after
she coming to know that the property which she purchased with
great hopes was a non existing property she stopped paying the
loan as per the loan agreement. This shows that the accused No.1
was not having any intention to cheat the society from the day she
borrowed the loan. Only once she came to now that she was duped
15
C.C.No.32580/2014
by the real estate mafia she stopped the payment to the society. In
fact the PW1 admits that before the loan they had visited the site
and also prepared valuation for the same. This shows that the
documents were prima facie perfect to give loan. Such being the
case when the accused No.1 never had intention to cheat the
complainant society from the inception then the above judgment is
aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. It can
be argued that the above judgment is not applicable to the accused
No.2 and 3 as no previous conviction is recorded against them. But
the fact remains that they are only co-obligant and guarantor to the
loan and they were never beneficiaries of the loan amount. The
contract between the accused No.2 and 3 was purely in the nature
of civil and not does not give rise to criminal proceedings. Hence,
this court holds that the above judgment is aptly applicable to the
facts and circumstance of this case.
20. From the above discussion it is clear the Accused No.1 is
also a victim of real estate fraud. She has already been convicted in
a cheque bounce case and she is liable for the consequences which
would follow if she refuses to pay the compensation as per the
judgment. However, in this case there are no materials on record to
16
C.C.No.32580/2014
show that the accused No.1 to 3 ever had any malafide intention to
cheat the society. Though the prosecution argued that the
documents which were submitted were forged, but the same were
not created by the accused herein. They fell prey to the real estate
mafia who had played fraud upon the accused herein. It is clear
from the evidence of PW1 that they had also found the documents
in order and later sanctioned the loan. This shows that the
documents were in order but the property was not corresponding to
the documents based on which the loan was granted. Hence, this
court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
all reasonable doubts. Accordingly I answer point No.1 in the
Negative.
21. POINT No.2:- In the result, I proceed to pass the
following:-
ORDER
In exercise of power conferred U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.467,468,471,420 of IPC. 17
C.C.No.32580/2014 The bail bond and surety bonds executed by the accused shall remain in force for 6 months. (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her, print out taken by her is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 11-03-2026 ).
(SYED ARFATH IBRAHIM M.,) XXXVII ADDL.C.J.M., BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
PW-1 : Nagendra Kumar S.J. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:-
Ex.P.1 : Loan application Ex.P.2 : Loan Agreement.
Ex.P.3 : On demand
Ex.P.4 : Authorization letter
Ex.P.5 : Memorandum of title deed
Ex.P.6 : Original sale deed
Ex.P.7 : Sale Agreement
Ex.P.8 : Property tax
Ex.P.9 : copy of Book volume of records
Ex.P.10 : BBMP certificate
Ex.P.11 : Kandayam receipt.
Ex.P.12 : Ge neological tree
Ex.P.13 : Certified copy of G.Tree
Ex.P.14 : Original sale deed
Ex.P.15 : Copy of death certificate
18
C.C.No.32580/2014
Ex.P.16 : Survey sketch
Ex.P.17 : Notice
Ex.P.18 : Report of Spot verification
Ex.P.19 & 20: Two certificates
Ex.P.21 : Letter of Loan sanctioned
Ex.P.22 : Valuation report
Ex.P.23 : Report of Legal scrutiny
Ex.P.24 : Notice
Ex.P.25 to 32: Eight Encumbrance certificates Ex.P.33 : Copy of Khatha extract.
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:-
NIL LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:-
DW-1 : Mamatha K. DW-2 : Govindappa N. DW-3 : Thimmaiah
LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE .
Ex.D1 : Notice
Ex.D.2 : Notice to accused No.3
Ex.D3 : Notice from Director of Co-operative society.
Ex.D4 : Letterdtd 7-5-2014 to the Police Commissioner
Ex.D.5 : Acknowledgement
Ex.D6 : Police notice
Ex.D7 : Letter to the Asst.Police commissioner Crimes
Dvn.
Ex.D.8 : Affidavit
Ex.D9 : Affidavit.
XXXVII ACJM., BENGALURU.19
C.C.No.32580/2014 11-03-2026 Judgment pronounced in open court vide separately.
ORDER In exercise of power conferred U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.467,468,471,420 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bonds executed by the accused shall remain in force for 6 months.
XXXVII ACJM., BENGALURU. 20 C.C.No.32580/2014