Karnataka High Court
Mrs. R. Geetha vs State Of Karnataka on 16 November, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8209/2017
BETWEEN:
1. MRS. R. GEETHA
W/O.SHIVAKUMAR K,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT:NO.411, 15TH CROSS,
NIMISHAMBA EXTENION,
NEAR GIRIYAS, RAMAKRISHNANAGAR,
MYSORE-570022.
2. KUM:DEEPIKA KAUSHIK S
D/O SHIVAKUMAR K,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT:NO.411, 15TH CROSS,
NIMISHAMBA EXTENSION,
NEAR GIRIYAS, RAMAKRISHNANAGAR,
MYSORE-570022.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.LETHIF B., ADV.)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
MANDYA EAST POLICE,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
REP. BY SPP,
2
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN
CR.NO.155/2017 OF MANDYA EAST P.S., MANDYA
DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
406,417,420,468,471,506 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 Nos.2 and 3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 420, 468, 471, 506 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.155/2017.
3
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments that one Radhakrishna P.R. has lodged the complaint, wherein it is alleged that accused No.1 by name Shivakumar K. is known to the complainant and his friends by name J.N.Gundurao, C.Chandrashekar, Smt.Vijayalakshmi and Shridharashastri since many years. In the year 2014, accused No.1 came to the house of the complainant situated at Ashokanagara Mandya and told that in the land belonging to him situated at Ajjipura Village, Kollegal Taluk, Chamarajanagar District, to the extent of 16 acres 81 cents, there is granite and accused No.1 told that granite business may be carried out in the land and asked the complainant to invest the money for quarry business on partnership. Further accused No.1 told that he has obtained license from the Government to do quarry business in his land. Accordingly, the complainant and his friends agreed with accused No.1 4 and visited the spot. Accused No.1 has shown his land wherein black granite available and thereafter, accused No.1, complainant and his friends have come to a terms and accordingly, a written Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 11.06.2014 has been executed at Mandya agreeing to invest Rs.6.00 Crores and also agreed to pay initial investment of Rs.1,50,00,000/- to accused NO.1 and having decided to open a partnership firm office at Mandya and started in the name and style as Sri Balaji Granite in the year 2014. Accused No.1 took Rs.1,00,00,000/- for the purpose of conversion of land and to get vacated the houses in the said land. For that purpose, accused No.1 took a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Again in the month of February to April, accused No.1 had taken a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. Inspite of it, there was no progress in the land so as to do granite business. The complainant and his friends came to know that accused 5 No.1 did not invest the said Rs.1,10,00,000/- for needful work in the said land so as to carry out the quarry business enquired with accused No.1 but he did not picking up the phone and not available to the complainant and one or the other reason he avoided the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant went to the house of accused No.1 and after discussion, accused No.1 has executed an agreement of sale dated 18.08.2016 registered before the Sub-Registrar, Hanuru, and accused No.1 obtained Rs.50,00,000/- on that day. Inspite of it, accused No.1 did not carry out any work as per MoU. Thereafter, the complainant on going through the conduct of accused No.1, when enquired, came to know that the accused No.1 has created and forged documents along with the present petitioners and the complainant also came to know that accused No.1 prior to enter into the present MoU with the complainant, in the month of November 2013 had 6 an agreement with one B.Puttapa, D.RaviKumar and S.N.Kumar for the purpose of doing granite business in the same property and he obtained Rs.1,10,00,000/- from them. He further contended in the complaint that accused No.1 along with these petitioners with an intention to cheat the complainant have created the document and they suppressed the fact that in the surrounding area wherein the property is situated there are houses constructed by the Government under Ashraya Scheme and this accused No.1 along with these petitioners knowing that the inmates of the said houses cannot be vacated because it is a house constructed under Ashraya Scheme. Petitioners and accused No.1 have also suppressed the earlier agreement executed in the year 2013 and they having received huge money from the complainant, cheated the complainant. 7
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments drew the attention of this Court to the documents produced along with the petition i.e., Memorandum of Understanding and other documents and submitted that looking to the complaint averments and other prosecution material, the serious allegations are against accused No.1 and not against the present petitioners. Hence, he submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners may be admitted to anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, during the course of his arguments has 8 submitted that, the prosecution material shows that by making a false promise that there are black granites available in the said land, they made the complainant and his friends to believe and received the huge amount more than Rs.1,50,00,000/-. He also submitted that accused No.1 and the present petitioners have also created and forged the documents in order to gain the monetary benefits as against the complainant. He has further submitted that accused No.1 is absconding and not available for interrogation. Hence, he submitted that in view of these serious allegations, petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the entire materials produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Looking to the materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that there are serious allegations of creation of 9 false documents, forgery of documents. Therefore, matter requires custodial interrogation and it is not a case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE BSR