Karnataka High Court
Sri Josyula Ramu vs State By K.R.Puram on 20 February, 2018
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.718/2018
BETWEEN:
1. SRI JOSYULA RAMU
S/O RAMACHANDRA,
AGED AB0UT 38 YEARS
R/O NO.579, CASTLE GREEN
COMPOUND, DOORAVANI NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560016
2. SRI. ASHOK DORESWAMY
S/O DORESWAMY IYER,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/O NO.40, 80 FEET ROAD,
SBM COLONY, BSK 1ST STAGE,
BENGALURU-560050. .. PETITIONERS
(By Sri BIJU V, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE BY K.R.PURAM
POLICE STATION,
WHITEFIELD SUB-DIVISION,
BANGALORE-571501
REP BY GOVT ADVOCATE. .. RESPONDENT
(By Sri CHETAN DESAI, HCGP)
2
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE
EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.560/2017 OF
K.R.PURAM POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release them on bail in the event of their arrest for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.560/2017.
2. The brief facts of prosecution case is that as per the complaint averments, the 1st petitioner is the director of Sri Srivari Fintrading Company Private Limited and the 2nd petitioner is the Business Associate of the said company having registration 3 No.U65100KA2011PTC059067. The 2nd petitioner is also an Ex-Director of Color Blue Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. In the year 2014, one Sri T R Mahadevan approached the petitioners for facilitating a standby letter of credit of the value of Euro 500 million on behalf of a steel manufacturing company by name M/s.Alangayam Steels Limited. In pursuant to the same, a MoU was entered into between the Managing Director of the said company, Alangayam Steels Limited, Sri P Chandran and the 1st petitioner herein. In order to facilitate the above activity of arranging the SBLC on behalf of the steel company and as advance amount, a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- was paid to the 1st petitioner herein in the form of a loan and pursuant to a loan agreement dated 6.7.2014 entered into between Sri T R Mahadevan and the 1st petitioner herein.
4
3. The allegations made in the complaint against the petitioners are that though the amount of Rs.29,00,000/- was paid by way of cash and the remaining amount of Rs.46,00,000/- by way of RTGS giving credit to the 1st petitioner's account, the petitioners herein without returning the amount have cheated the complainant and caused loss to the complainants. On the basis of the said complaint, a case came to be registered against the petitioners for the aforesaid offence.
4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent -State.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, complaint and other materials produced in the case.
5
6. Looking into the complaint, it is mentioned that there was oral understanding so far as the complainant giving amount of Rs.75,00,000/- to the petitioners for getting foreign investment into the company of the complainant. During the course of hearing of the petitioners, it is noted that learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court to the documents produced in the case stating that there was a memorandum of understanding between the complainant and the 1st petitioner herein. While drawing attention of this Court to the said document, learned counsel made the submission that this has been suppressed by the complainant and it is only mentioned in the complaint that there was oral understanding. The document at Annexure-D produced in the petition was signed by the 1st and 2nd parties and entered into on 6.7.2014. The next document at Annexure-E is loan agreement and as per this 6 agreement also, the same was signed by both the parties. No doubt, in the end of the document, it is mentioned that in lieu of repayment of the loan amount, the 2nd party has issued a post dated cheque bearing No.327763 dated 16.7.2014 for Rs.75,00,000/- drawn on Duetsche Bank, M G Road Branch from his Account No.400012448880019. It is mentioned that this transaction is interest free and issued to the company M/s.K V Electricals and Engineering Pvt. Ltd. In the said document, it is also stated that if the above mentioned cheque is not encashed on its presentation, then the first party shall have right to file a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and under Section 420 of IPC and the first party shall also have right to launch other criminal proceedings as well as civil proceedings against the second party and the second party shall be fully responsible for the same. This document also goes to 7 show that there was certain transactions between the complainant and the petitioners herein. Even according to the document executed between the parties, liberty is given to the complainant to launch both civil and criminal proceedings. It is the allegation of the complainant that though the amount of Rs.75,00,000/- has been given to the 1st petitioner including Rs.29,00,000/- to the 2nd petitioner, the petitioners have not performed as agreed with the complainant. Therefore, looking into these materials placed, prima facie, the complainant has placed the materials to support the transaction of Rs.75,00,000/- paid to the petitioners. Therefore it is not a case for grant of anticipatory bail by allowing the petition.
Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bkm