Bangalore District Court
Arm Branch vs State By Banashankari P.S on 27 May, 2020
Crl.R.P. 950-2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LI ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU
PRESENT
SHRI.VENKATESH.R.HULGI
B.Com. LL.B.(Spl.)
LI Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY- 2020.
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 950-2019
Revision The Chief Manager, Indian Overseas Bank,
Petitioner ARM Branch, No. 10/1, Palace Road, III
Floor, Vasanthanagar, Bengaluru-560 052.
(By Sri. H.E. Gundegowda , Adv.).
// VERSUS//
Respondent State by Banashankari P.S.
(C.I.D.Police) Bengaluru City.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor) O RDE R This petition is filed U/s 397 of Cr.P.C., assailing the legality and correctness of the impugned order dated 27/06/2018 passed by IV A.C.M.M. Bengaluru in Cr.No. 429/2015, vide the impugned Crl.R.P. 950-2019 order the Trial Court has rejected the application filed by the present petitioner under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. seeking for relaxation or modification of the conditions imposed in the order dated 07/05/2018.
2. The facts of the case which are required for disposal of the present petition if stated in brief are as under:
The petitioner being the complainant in Cr. No. 429/2015 of Banashankari P.S. registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 409, 468, 420 and 471 of I.P.C. r/w. Section 34 of I.P.C. has filed an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court seeking the interim custody of around 14 articles as indicated in the order dated 07/05/2018 passed by the Trial Court on the ground that in view of the repayment of the loan amount with interest by accused No. 6 Smt. Lakshmi, it was necessary for the petitioner to return all the original loan documents which were submitted by her while availing the loan from the petitioner Bank. It is stated that it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner Bank to return all the security documents to the borrower once the borrower clears the loan. Accordingly petitioner had applied for Crl.R.P. 950-2019 the release of aforesaid documents seized by the I.O. during the investigation and subjected through P.F.
3. The above application was resisted by the Prosecution on various grounds.
4. The Trial Court after having heard the arguments of both the sides and on perusal of the materials placed on record was pleased to allow the application filed by the petitioner Under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. and thereby directed to hand over the above documents to the interim custody of the Branch Manager of the petitioner Bank subject to the condition that the petitioner Bank shall execute an indemnity bond for Rs. 50,000/- with a surety for like sum with further condition that the petitioner Bank shall produce the above documents before the Court whenever it is directed to do so.
5. Subsequently, petitioner filed another application under the same Provision of Law before the Trial Court seeking relaxation of the conditions more particularly condition for production of the documents at Item Nos. 13 & 14. Those documents are absolute Sale Deed and Memorandum of Title Deeds. It was urged before Crl.R.P. 950-2019 the Trial Court that the returning of those documents to the borrower is quite necessary as she has cleared the loan. It is stated that the petitioner Bank can produce the certified copies of Sale Deed and Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed as and when directed by the Court. However, the Trial Court vide order dated 27/06/2018 dismissed the said application for relaxation or modifying the conditions imposed vide order dated 07/05/2018. Hence being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed the instant petition on the following GROUNDS The impugned order passed by the Trial Court is illegal and against the settled position of Law and also the Banking Rules. It is stated that accused No.6 who has availed housing loan by depositing of the Title Deeds with other documents had repaid the loan and demanded to return the original title deeds. The petitioner Bank, as a matter of procedure is under obligation to return the same to the borrower in view of the Rules of Banking. Therefore, the conditions that those documents to be produced before the Court as and when directed to do so would operate Crl.R.P. 950-2019 injustice to the parties. The Trial Court has failed to consider this contention of the petitioner for relaxation of the conditions. Therefore, the order passed by the Trial Court impugned in the present petition is against the principles of Banking Rules and against the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Therefore, it is prayed to set-aside the impugned order and to modify the conditions.
6. In response to the notice, the respondent has appeared through learned Public Prosecutor.
7. As the petitioner has produced certified copies of documents which are sufficient for disposal of the instant petition, therefore, with the consent of both the sides calling of T.C.R. is dispensed with.
8. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
9. During the course of arguments the counsel for petitioner in the instant case the contention raised by the petitioner seeking for relaxation of the conditions. Per contra, by justifying the impugned order learned Public Prosecutor would submit that a case of fabrication of documents, forging of documents in order to Crl.R.P. 950-2019 cheat the petitioner Bank is made against the accused. The complaint was filed by the petitioner Bank only alleging the commission of the aforesaid offences. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner Bank cannot be considered. It is submitted that now the petitioner appears to have colluded with the accused for return of the documents. Those documents are very much necessary for proving of allegations made against the accused in the Trial. Hence, it is prayed to reject the petition.
10. Based on the aforesaid arguments the following point arises for my consideration :
1. Whether the order of the Trial Court impugned in the present petition is illegal, arbitrary and perverse and therefore calls for interference at the hands of this court?
11. My finding on he aforesaid point is in the "Affirmative" for the following:
REASONS
12. POINT No.1: As mentioned above, the application of the Petitioner Bank seeking interim custody of the 1 to 14 items enlisted in the application was allowed by the Trial Court but subject to certain conditions. I have mentioned the above Crl.R.P. 950-2019 conditions for appreciation. Therefore, I do not repeat the same.
13. It is the contention of the petitioner that subsequent to the filing of the complaint, accused No. 6 Smt. Lakshmi has come forward to return the loan amount and she has paid the entire dues. She is insisting for her original documents which was deposited as a security. Therefore, the petitioner Bank is obliged to return those documents as per the Banking Rules. Hence, condition that they should be produce as and when directed by court cannot be complied as it is a onures conditions. Therefore, it is prayed to relax the conditions by setting aside the impugned order.
14. From the reading of the impugned order of the Trial Court it becomes very clear that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the allegations made in the complaint given by Chief Regional Manager of the Complainant Bank. The petitioner has produced the certified copy of the complaint which goes to show that Smt.Lakshmi is shown as 4th Accused It is alleged against the aforesaid lady that she had obtained housing loan of Rs. 35 lakhs from the Petitioner Bank by submitting forged financial papers/I.T. returns and cheated the petitioner Bank which is a public Crl.R.P. 950-2019 Institution. Thus, it is clear that it is not the case of the petitioner Bank that Smt. Lakshmi had produced fabricated and forged title Deeds. The allegation is that she has submitted forged financial papers and I.T returns only. Thus, it becomes clear that the documents at Item No. 13 Absolute Sale Deed and Item No. 14 Memorandum of Title Deed are not forged documents. Therefore, those original documents are not required for the purpose of investigation and also at the time of Trial. Unfortunately, the Trial Court has not appreciated this aspect of the matter while passing the impugned order. Consequently, the impugned order which is passed in ignorance of above facts is illegal and arbitrary and it will come in the way of Petitioner Bank to return the loan documents to the borrower. Therefore, the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner Bank is colluded with the borrower/accused is not sustainable. The petitioner Bank may be directed to produce attested copies of those two documents being attested by the borrower while taking interim custody of those documents. Therefore to the above extent the order passed by the Trial Court impugned in the present petition being illegal requi interference at the hands of this court. Hence, I answer the Crl.R.P. 950-2019 point raised above in the "Affirmative" and in the result I proceed to pass the following:
O R DE R The revision petition filed by the petitioner U/s 397 of Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed.
The order of the Trial Court dated 27/06/2018 is hereby set-aside.
The application filed by the petitioner Under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. seeking relaxation or modification of the conditions imposed vide order dated 07/05/2018 is allowed only in respect of documents at Item Nos. 13 & 14. The order dated 07/05/2018 regarding other documents is not disturbed.
The Trial Court shall release Item No. 13 Absolute Sale Deed and Item No. 14 Memorandum of Title Deed to the petitioner after obtaining duly attested copies by the borrower.
No order as to costs.
Crl.R.P. 950-2019 Send the certified copy of this order to the trial court for compliance forthwith.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected, print out signed and then pronounced by me in open court on the 27 th day of May, 2020 ) (VENKATESH.R.HULGI) LI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
Crl.R.P. 950-2019
Crl.R.P. 950-2019
By complying guidelines given by at para No.31 of the revised
orders plan issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru dated 03/05/2020 and as per
Circular dated 11/05/2020 of District Court bearing
No. RPS (CCC) To No. 10/2020, order is
pronounced vide the following:
OR D E R
The revision petition filed by the petitioner U/s 397 of Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed.
The order of the Trial Court dated 27/06/2018 is hereby set-aside.
The application filed by the petitioner Under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. seeking relaxation or modification of the conditions imposed vide order dated 07/05/2018 is allowed only in respect of documents at Item Nos. 13 & 14. The order dated 07/05/2018 regarding other documents is not disturbed.
The Trial Court shall release Item No. 13 Absolute Sale Deed and Item No. 14 Memorandum of Title Deed to the petitioner after obtaining duly attested copies by the borrower.
Crl.R.P. 950-2019 No order as to costs.
Send the certified copy of this order to the trial court for compliance forthwith.
LI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. Bengaluru.