Bangalore District Court
N.Devraj Gupta @ Rajanna vs L.Nagaraj on 21 May, 2022
1 CC.No.47036/10
IN THE COURT OF XXIV ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF MAY 2022
C.C. No.47036/10
Present: SRI. B.C.CHANDRASHEKAR
B.A., LL.B.,
XXIV ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
COMPLAINANT : N.Devraj Gupta @ Rajanna,
S/o.N.S.Narayanaswamy Setty,
Aged about 59 yrs, No.562,
I main road, Nagendra block,
Bengaluru.
Rep.by Sri.HSC
V/s.
Accused L.Nagaraj, s/o.late.Lingaiah, 40
yrs, R/at.No.554/19, I cross, 7th
main road, Hanumanthanagar,
Bengaluru.
Rep.by Sri.KNN, Advocate
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT : 07/02/2005
OF OFFENCE
DATE OF ARREST OF THE : Accused is on bail.
ACCUSED
2 CC.No.47036/10
OFFENCES ALLEGED : U/s. 386, 506(B) of IPC.
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT : 21/06/2019
OF EVIDENCE
DATE OF CLOSING OF : 23/01/2020
EVIDENCE
OPINION OF THE JUDGE : Found not guilty
(B.C.CHANDRASHEKAR)
XXIV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
: J U D G M E N T :
This is a case arising out of the PCR filed by the
complainant against the accused for the offences punishable
u/s.386, 506(B) of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the allegation levelled by the
complainant in his Private complaint that he is a
businessmen by profession running the provision store under
the name and style M/s.Krishna Traders since 1964. The
accused introduced with the complainant in the year 1995
and in the year 1998, the accused has approached the
complainant and informed that he is one of the Director of the
Private Limited Company by name and style M/s.Vajreshwari
Chits Pvt., Ltd., and one Hanumaiah was introduced into the
business. Thereafter in the year 1999, the accused again
3 CC.No.47036/10
approached the complainant and informed that the Director of
the firm has launched a new business at Chamarajpet in the
name and style of M/s.Annapoorneshwari Finances and
asked to make the investment for a tune of Rs.50,000/ or
more and forced the complainant to invest the amount of
Rs.1,65,000/. After investment to the said firm, due to
illegal activities of the accused, the said firm was closed in the
year 2002.
3. It is an allegation of the complainant that on 7/2/05,
the accused telephoned through one H.Hanumaiah who was
the Director of said Vajreshwari Finance and asked him to
meet the accused, accordingly, when the complainant went at
Gavipuram park, he saw H.Hanumaiah and later on the
accused has came there and asked the complainant to listen
his words or else the complainant would face many problems
in his transaction and told that he will cause loss of lakhs of
rupees if he does not listen his words. At that juncture, the
accused has asked the complainant to bring two blank
cheques and pay Rs.2 lakhs on the very same day and
threatened if this matter is revealed to anyone, he will face
dire consequences. As the complainant has no cash, he
brought 2 blank cheques near Brahma Chaitanya Mandira at
about 10 pm., and at that time, one Hanumaiah and
4 CC.No.47036/10
Thimmaiah were present and the complainant has handed
over two blank cheques out of sheer fear of loss and life to
Mr.Hanumaiah and thus the accused has committed the
extortion.
4. It is further alleged that on 9/2/05, the accused has
telephoned the complainant 56 times to pay the amount of
Rs.2 lakhs, hence, the complainant has borrowed Rs.2 lakhs
from his relative and Hanumaiah and Shekar came to his
house on 10/2/05 and he has handed over Rs.2 lakhs, who
wrote out a chit for having received the cash of Rs.2 lakhs.
The accused has agreed to return the cheques within 45 days
but he has not complied with the terms, whenever he asks,
the accused told to collect the cheques with Hanumaiah and
when he asked the Hanumaiah, he asked the complainant to
seek the permission of the accused. Hence, the complainant
has lodged the complaint before the Commissioner of police
on 9/5/05 and Commissioner of Police has referred the
matter to Hanumanthanagar police. The Hanumanthanagar
police have summoned the accused and after mutual talks,
the accused has returned 2 blank cheques which were in the
custody of the Hanumaiah and he has agreed before the PI
Shekar, Hanumanthanagar Police Station that he will pay the
amount within a span of 2 days. After lapse of 2 days,
5 CC.No.47036/10
instead of repaying the amount, he complained to the
Lokayuktha police and Human Rights against PI of
Hanumanthanagar Police Station that they have acted
inhumanly with him and made the allegation against the PI.
When these facts came to know, other partners by name
Hanumaiah, Thimmaiah and Prabhakar.B.R, Srikantha and
Chikkegowda have submitted a representation to the PI of
Hanumanthanagar Police Station on 23/5/06 narrating that
the complaint lodged by the accused before the Lokayuktha
police is totally false and Police Inspector has behaved with
them decently, thus with an intention to cheat the
complainant, the accused has extorted and cheated the
complainant by extortion and intimidation by obtaining Rs.2
lakhs and obtained 2 blank cheques, thereby he has
committed an offence u/s.386 and 506 of IPC. Hence, the
complainant has filed this private complaint to punish the
accused in accordance with law.
5. After filing the PCR, this matter has referred to
Hanumanthanagar Police Station for investigation u/s.156(3)
of Cr.P.C., after investigation the Investigating officer has
submitted the 'B' report. The complainant has filed the
objections to 'B' report. After recording the sworn statement
of the complainant and a witness, this court has taken the
6 CC.No.47036/10
cognizance for the offence u/s.386, 506 of IPC vide orders
dtd: 2/11/10 and issued the process to the accused. In
response of the same, the accused has appeared through his
counsel and filed the Bail application and he has released on
bail and provision of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., has complied with.
The complainant has submits the Evidence Before the
Charge. The complainant has examined himself as PW 1.
After evidence before charge, after being heard the arguments,
as there was no grounds to discharge the accused, charge for
the offences u/s.386, 506 of IPC has been framed & read
over, explained to the accused in the language best known to
him. The accused has not pleaded guilty and claims to be
tried. Hence, the case taken up for trial.
6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the
complainant himself has examined the PW 1 and a witness is
examined as PW 2 and one document has been marked as
Ex.P.1. After prosecution evidence, the accused has been
examined u/s.313 of Cr.P.C., & he has denied the
prosecution evidence. The accused has not chosen to
submit the defence evidence.
7. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
complainant and counsel for accused. Perused, On the basis
of the above, the following points have arises for my
7 CC.No.47036/10
consideration :
1) Whether prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that on 7/2/05 at
about 10.00 pm., Gavipuram park, the
accused by putting CW 1 under threat
collected two blank cheques near
Brahma Chaitanya mandira and on
10/2/05, the accused collected Rs.2
lakhs from him near his house and
thereby committed an offence u/s.386 of
IPC ?
2) Whether prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that on the above
said date, time and place, accused
threatened the CW 1 with dire
consequences of life and thereby
committed an offence u/s.506(B) of
IPC ?
3) What order ?
8. My answer to the above points is as under;
Point No.1 and 2 In the Negative
Point No.3As per final order for the following :
REASONS
9. According to the complainant, the accused has
committed an offence u/s.386 and 506(B) of IPC. In order to
warrants the conviction for an offence u/s.386 of IPC the
8 CC.No.47036/10
complainant must prove the essential ingredients as per the
said provision that the accused has put the complainant in a
fear of death or grievous hurt in order to extract the amount
of Rs.2 lakhs as well as blank cheques, if these ingredients
are proved, the accused will be found guilty for the offence
u/s.386 of IPC. Similarly if the accused has threatened the
complainant to do away his life with dire consequences, the
accused will be found guilty for the offence u/s.506 of IPC.
By keeping the principles of these provisions, I carefully gone
through the evidence placed by the complainant. In order to
prove the guilt of the accused, the complainant himself
examined as PW 1 and he has deposed that he know the
accused. The accused has kept a vegetable shop infront of a
shop of N.Jayakumar, the brother of the complainant. Thus,
the accused is acquainted with the complainant. Since 1995
to 2005, the complainant was running a private chits by
name Vajreshwari Chits Pvt., at Hanumanthanagar and Bank
colony. In the year 1998 the accused has joined as a
Director to the said bank. In the year 1999, the accused was
running Annapurneshwari Finance corporation at
Chamarajpet and he is acquainted with him, he took the
complainant as one of the partners, at that time, in order to
take him as a partner, he has collected Rs.165000/, later on
he has not returned the investment amount or any profit.
9 CC.No.47036/10
10. PW 1 further deposed that on 7/2/05, the accused
telephoned through one Hanumaiah and asked him to come
to Gavipuram park at 5 pm., hence, he went there at 5 pm.,
at that time, one Hanumaiah was there and later on the
accused has came there. The accused has asked him to give
Rs.2 lakhs and 2 blank cheques with respect to division of
sites of Pattanagere village. When he questioned, the accused
told him that he must give the same and threatened him.
Further told him that if he not given the cash and cheque, he
will cause the loss to the tune of Rs.60 lakhs in relation to the
said sites. On the same day at about 9.30 pm., he went to
Brahma Chethana Mandira at Hanumanthanagar by taking 2
cheques. Hanumaiah and Nagraj were there, when he went to
give the cheques to the accused, he told him to give them to
Hanumaiah, thus, he has given the cheque to the
Hanumaiha. Later on the accused has asked the cash and as
he has no cash, he took time of 23 days.
11. PW 1 further deposed that on 9/2/05, the accused
has called him 23 times over phone and forced him to pay
the amount and threatened him. Hence, on 10/2/05 he took
the loan from the relative and called the accused and at that
time, the accused told him that he will send 2 persons near
the house and asked him to pay the said amount. Thus, 2
10 CC.No.47036/10
persons were came and took the amount by saying the name
of the accused and their names are V.Shekar and
Hanumaiah. At that time, they gave a chit for taking the
money and the accused has called him over phone and told
him that he has received the amount, hence, he has torn the
chit given by the Shekar and Hanumaiah.
12. He further deposed that the accused has told him
that before 45 days he should not ask to return the cheque
and he will return after 45 days. Hence, after 45 days, he
asked the accused to return the cheques, but he used to told
to ask Hanumaiah and when he asked the Hanumaiha, he
told him that if accused says, he will give the cheques, hence,
on 9/5/05 he lodged the complaint before the Commissioner
of the Police and Commissioner of Police has sent it to the
Hanumanthanagar Police Station. One Shekar, PI of
Hanumanthanagar Police Station has called him and accused
and enquried and accused and Hanumaiah have admits that
he has given the cash and cheques. The next day,
Hanumaiah and accused have came to the Police Station and
handed over the blank cheques and he has collected them.
Further he admits that without returning the remaining
amount, the accused has lodged the complaint before the
Lokayuktha and Human rights against the Police Inspector.
11 CC.No.47036/10
Hence, the Police Inspector has left the matter. He further
deposed that again he lodged the complaint before the Joint
Commissioner of the Police and the colleagues of the accused
have given the statement before the Lokayuktha. Later on
one Dharanesh has came as a Police Inspector and without
proper investigation he submitted the 'B' report. But the
accused has cheated him for Rs.60 lakhs. Hence, he lodged
this private complaint before the court.
13. In support of his evidence , the complainant has
examined one Shekar.B, s/o.Muniraju as PW 2 and he has
deposed that on 10/2/05 during the morning he had been to
the house of the accused at that time, he found the accused
and another person by name Hanumaiah and the accused
has asked him to go to the house of the complainant as he
was making payment of some money. He and Hanumaiah
have went to the house of the complainant and complainant
has given Rs.2 lakhs in the hands of Hanumaiah. Later on
Hanumaiah executed receipt in favour of the complainant for
having received the money. Later on Hanumaiah and himself
have went to the house of the accused and handed over the
same to his hands and he has acknowledged the amount.
14. Apart from this Ex.P.1 is the complaint. I carefully
12 CC.No.47036/10
gone through the entire evidence as well as allegation made
by the complainant against the accused. Though the
complainant has narrated the facts how he acquainted with
him and accused committed the offences as alleged in the
complaint. The main allegation against the accused that the
accused has forced him and put a threat to give 2 blank
cheques and Rs.2 lakhs cash and as the accused has
threatened him he has given 2 cheques on 7/2/05 at 9.30
pm., in the presence of one Hanumaiha and Thimmaiah. As
the accused has telephoned him on 9/2/05 and forced the
complainant to pay the amount on 10/2/05 he has handed
over Rs.2 lakhs amount to one Hanumaiah in the presence of
Shekar and the said Hanumiaah wrote a chit for having
received the cash. The complainant himself has contended
that since the accused has called him and told about receipt
of the money, he has torn the chit given by the said
Hanumaiah. Accordingly, there is no any documentary
evidence about payment of Rs.2 lakhs by the complainant.
Thus, the complainant is only relying upon his oral evidence
to prove the allegation against the accused.
15. The PW 1 has produced the copy of the complaint
lodged to the Commissioner of the Police and in page 4 of the
same, he makes an allegation that on 7/2/05, the accused
13 CC.No.47036/10
has collected Rs.2 lakhs cash and 2 cheques from him by
making the blackmail. When the complainant himself has
makes the allegation in Ex.P.1 that the accused himself has
took 2 cheques and Rs.2 lakhs cash on 7/2/05 but he makes
an allegation in the private complaint that on 7/2/05 at
about 10 pm., when he went near Brahma Chaitanya
Mandira, the accused has asked the complainant to hand
over the cheque to Hanumaiah, thus he has handed over the
same to Hanumaiah. Thus, the allegation of the complainant
is makes slight contrary and creating doubt on his allegation.
16. It is very significant to note here that as per his
private complaint on 9/2/05 the accused has called him 56
times to pay the amount, thus, he has borrowed the loan from
relative and one Hanumaiah and Shekar have came to his
house on 10/2/05 and on that day, he handed over Rs.2
lakhs to Hanumaiah who executed chit for received the
amount. But as per Ex.P.1 in page no.4 as stated above, the
accused by blackmailing the complainant, has received 2
cheques on 7/2/05 itself. As per Ex.P.1 in page no.4 he
clearly makes an allegation that on 7/2/05 itself the accused
has taken Rs.2 lakhs cash and 2 cheques from him by
making the blackmail. When the complainant has makes an
allegation that on 7/2/05 itself the accused has already took
14 CC.No.47036/10
the amount of Rs.2 lakhs, the complainant has changed his
version that he has given the amount to Hanumaiah on
10/2/05 and this changing version of the complainant is
creating doubt in the mind of this court about his allegation
against the accused. Thus, the allegation of giving amount to
Hanumaiah became falsifies.
17. It is significant to note here that the complainant
has makes the clear allegation that the accused has called the
complainant through Hanumaiah to come to Gavipuram park
when he went there, Hanumaiah was there and later on the
accused came there and immediately he asked the
complainant to listen his words or else complainant would
face many problems in his transaction and also told the
complainant that he will cause loss of lakhs of rupees if
complainant does not listen the words of the accused and the
accused has asked the complainant to bring 2 cheques and to
pay Rs.2 lakhs on the very same day. In order to attract the
provision of sec.386 of IPC there would be an extortion by
putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt, here the
complainant has not makes an allegation against the accused
that he has put the fear of death or grievous hurt and
committed extortion, but his allegation that he has asked him
to listen his words or else he would face many troubles in the
15 CC.No.47036/10
transaction and he will cause the loss of lakhs of rupees.
Hence, the allegation made by the complainant is not
particularly attracting the penal provisions of Sec.386 of IPC.
18. Furthermore it is very significant to note here that
when he went to Gavipuram park, one Hanumaiah was alone
there and accused has put the fear of causing loss and asked
him to pay Rs.2 lakhs and cheques that is the reason why
same day, he went to Brahma Chaitanya Mandira and as told
by the accused he has handed over blank cheque to
Hanumaiah, at least at that time also there was no complaint
of putting the complainant in fear or death and there is an
extortion of 2 blank cheques. According to him, one
Hanumaiah and Thimmaiah were present at that time, but
atleast no one has been examined by the complainant to
establish the said facts.
19. Similarly it is significant to note here that on
9/2/05, the accused has telephoned him 56 times to pay the
amount, hence, in the next day morning, the complainant has
called him and as told by the accused one Hanumaiah and
Shekar have came there and he has handed over the said
amount, thus atleast on 9/5/05 or 10/2/05 there is no any
putting the complainant in fear of death or grievous hurt in
16 CC.No.47036/10
extorting money of Rs.2 lakhs.
20. On meticulous verification of the allegation as well as
evidence, admittedly he has not handed over the cheques
directly to the accused or he has not handed over amount
directly to accused , but according to him, he has handed
over amount to Hanumaiah as told by him on 7/2/05,
similarly he has handed over the amount to Hanumaiah as
told by the accused. As stated above, absolutely there was no
any kind of fear of death or grievous hurt put by the accused .
Even for a moment it believes that because the fear put by the
accused , he has handed over the cheques as well as cash,
there should be some material documents to accept the same.
But absolutely the complainant has not produced any iota of
evidence about giving the cheque as well as cash to said
Hanumaiah.
21. It is pertinent to note here that the complainant has
deposed that on 9/5/05 he has lodged the complaint before
the Commissioner of Police about the incident and they have
transferred the same to the Hanumanthanagar Police
Station . One Sri.Shekar, PI of the Police Station has called
both the parties and the accused has admits the taking of the
cheque and amount and further clearly admits that in the
17 CC.No.47036/10
next day morning, the accused and Hanumaiah have handed
over the blank cheques to the Police Station and he has
collected the same from them. But in the private complaint
he has makes an allegation that when the Hanumanthanagar
police have summoned the accused after mutual talks, the 2
blank cheques which were in the custody of the Hanumaiah
were handed over to the complainant. Inspite of that the
complainant has not produced atleast the copy of the
complaint lodged to Commissioner of Police on 9/5/05 or any
other materials to believe his allegations.
22. The complainant has examined one Shekar
Babu.B.M as an eye witness about payment of the amount
and he has deposed that on 10/2/05 at about 10 am., when
he went to the house of the accused , he asked him and one
Hanumaiah to go to the house of the complainant and
collected the amount thus, he went to the house of the
complainant and the complainant has given Rs.2 lakhs to
Hanumaiah and he and Hanumaiah again came to the house
of the accused and handed over the amount to the accused.
But PW 2 at the time of submitting his sworn statement dtd:
8/4/10 he has deposed before the court that the complainant
Gupta gave Rs.2 lakhs in the hands of the accused consisting
of 2 bundles of Rs.1000/ notes.
18 CC.No.47036/10
23. PW 2 at one breath deposed that as told by the
accused he and Hanumaiah went to the house of the
complainant and at the time of Evidence before charge he has
deposed that he and Hanumaiha have went to the house of
the complainant and complainant has given Rs.2 lakhs to
Hanumaiah. But another breath in the sworn statement dtd:
8/4/10 he has deposed that complainant Gupta gave Rs.2
lakhs in the hands of the accused consisting of Rs.1000/
notes. The said version of the PW 2 creates slight doubt in
the mind of the court. It is significant to note here that at the
time of the cross examination PW 2 has clearly admits that he
does not know what was the transaction between the accused
and complainant and he does not know for what reason, the
accused has sent him to collect the amount. Further admits
that Hanumaiah has got executed chit to the complainant
about receipt of the amount of Rs.2 lakhs, but he does not
know what was the reason for collecting the amount has not
mentioned in the said letter. He further admits that he does
not know the money transaction of the complainant and
accused from beginning itself. Thus, though PW 2 has just
deposed that he went to the house of the complainant and
complainant has given the amount to Hanumaiah and inturn
the Hanumaiah handed over the same to accused, absolutely
he does not know what is the reason behind in it. As he
19 CC.No.47036/10
clearly admits that he does not know the transaction between
the complainant and accused it cannot be hold that the
accused has took the amount from the complainant by
putting the fear of death or grievous hurt and committed the
extortion. There should be a strong evidence to accept the
guilt of the accused . Mere oral allegation of the complainant
itself is not sufficient to believe the allegation against the
accused as the evidence of the complainant has created some
doubt in the mind of the court.
24. As per the detailed discussion made above, though
the complainant has makes an allegation that accused has
forced him to give 2 blank cheques and cash of Rs.2 lakhs
and on the basis of the same, he has given Rs.2 lakhs as well
as 2 blank cheques, absolutely there is no acceptable
evidence and accused has collected the amount of Rs.2 lakhs
as well as blank cheques by putting him in fear of death or
grievous hurt. Similarly absolutely there is no materials to
believe that he has handed over the cheque as well as cash to
the accused, as per the penal provision of Sec.386 of IPC.
Except self declared statement in the complaint as well as his
sole evidence before the court absolutely there is no materials
to believe that the accused has committed an extortion in
taking amount of Rs.2 lakhs and blank cheques by putting
20 CC.No.47036/10
the complainant in fear of death or grievous hurt . Just the
complainant has makes an allegation against the accused in
his complaint and reiterated the whatever the allegation of the
complainant before the court at the time of his evidence
absolutely, there is no supporting evidence or iota of evidence
to believe the allegations and evidence placed by the
complainant is not sufficient to accept the guilt of the
accused.
25. During the course of the arguments, the counsel for
the complainant has relied upon a decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in AIR 1957 SC 381 in between Ram
Chandra and another v/s. State of U.P. I carefully gone
through the entire decision. The facts and circumstances of
the said case and facts of this case are totally different, it is
not at all applies to the facts of this case and it does not helps
to accept the guilt of the accused only on the basis of the oral
evidence of the PW 1. Similarly the counsel for the accused
has relied upon another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in 1995 AIR SCW 2634 in between Radha Ballabha
and others v/st.State of U.P. I carefully gone through the
above decisions as stated above. The ratio of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court is not applies to the case on hand as the
evidence placed by the complainant is totally inadequate and
21 CC.No.47036/10
insufficient to believe the allegation against the accused.
Hence, viewed from any angle, absolutely there are no
materials to accept the guilt of the accused and there is a
lacking of material evidence to believe the case of the
prosecution. Under such circumstances, a strong doubt
accrued in the mind of the court about the case of the
prosecution. In a criminal justice system, if a tiny doubt
arises in the mind of the court, benefit of doubt shall be
extended to the accused. In this case, not only tiny doubt but
the strong doubt arise in the mind of the court. Hence, the
prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, in my opinion
it is a fit case to extend benefit of doubt to the accused.
Accordingly point under reference answered in the
Negative.
26. POINT NO.2 :
For the aforesaid reason and discussion, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/s.386, 506(B) of IPC.
The bail bond executed by the accused is 22 CC.No.47036/10 stands cancelled. However, Accused shall execute personal bond of Rs.50,000/ by undertaking to appear before the appellate Court, if any appeal is filed.
It is not a fit case to award victim compensation as provided U/s.357(1) of Cr.P.C., (Dictated to the stenographer, script transcribed by her and then corrected directly on computer and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 21st day of May 2022).
(B.C.Chandrashekara) XXIV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Prosecution:
PW1 : Devraj Gupta PW 2 : Shekar Babu
Documents marked for the Prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P1(a) : Signature
Witnesses examined for the accused: NIL Documents marked for the accused: NIL (B.C.Chandrashekara) XXIV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.