Bangalore District Court
P. Gopinath Nair vs Smt. Y.P. Kathyayini And 2 Others on 17 October, 2025
1
C.C.No.32179/2010
KABC030328742010
Presented on : 16-07-2010
Registered on : 16-07-2010
Decided on : 17-10-2025
Duration : 15 years, 3 months, 1 days
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT.
SRI. SIDDARAMA.S. M.A, LL.M.
III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
AT BENGALURU CITY
C.C.No.32179/2010
State by Karnataka Yeshavanthapura Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Represented by Sr. APP)
V/s
Accused Persons 1. Smt.Y.P.Kathyayini
W/o Late Ramakrishna Shetty,
R/at No.16, Prisetine,
Magnum, Ejipura Main Road,
Vivekanagar Post,
Bengaluru-47.
2. Smt.Meera Santhosh (Split up)
2
C.C.No.32179/2010
S/o Santhosh,
Aged about 49 years,
Occupation: House Wife,
R/at No.6/1, Angel House,
Abhaya Garden,
Vivekanagar,
Bengaluru-47.
3. Smt.Manjula Rajagopal
C/o Y.P.Kathyayini,
R/at No.15/1,
Ejipura Main Road,
Vivekanagar Post,
Bengaluru-47.
(Reptd., by Smt.A.A., Advocate)
Name of the Sri.Gopinathan Nayar
Complainant : S/o Ponnupillie,
R/at No.21, 2nd Cross,
S.B.M.Colony,
Mathikere,
Bangalore-560 054.
Date of offence 17.09.2009
Date of offence reported 23.11.2009
Date of Commence of 02.03.2017
Evidence
Date of Closure of 16.07.2025
Evidence
Offence Committed Under Section 406, 420, 201, 120(B),
506 read with section 34 of IPC.
3
C.C.No.32179/2010
Opinion of Judge Found not guilty.
Complainant by Learned Senior Assistant Public
Prosecutor.
Accused by By Smt.A.A., Advocate
(SIDDARAMA.S.)
III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
AT BENGALURU CITY.
JUDGMENT
The PI of Yeshavanthapura Police Station submitted charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 201, 120(B), 506 read with section 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:-
The case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 introduced herself to the complainant by telling she is working as a Telephone Operator at State Bank of Mysore and her husband running a Comfort Home In Private Guest House and gained trust on her. The CW-4 is the owner of Flat No.605, NGV Complex, B Block, Kumaradhara, Koramangala. The 4 C.C.No.32179/2010 accused persons approached him to take the said flat on rent. The flat was let out to her as per the rental agreement. She used to approach him that for temporary financial assistance for taking up additional PG accommodation, towards payment of advances and providing facilities in such accommodation. During April 2009 the accused No.1 approached him with the proposal of procuring a 100 single bedroom accommodation in Electronic City for providing PG Accommodation to the students of M/s.Aptech Computers (P) Ltd., coming from Nigeria stating that a substantial amount of Rs.70,00,000/- is required to be paid towards advance for the premises and for providing the necessary furniture and fixtures to accommodate 100 students. The accused No.1 also informed that a sum of Rs.14,000/- per student per month is receivable for providing PG Accommodation inclusive of food and there will be substantial profit in the said business. The said contract is for a minimum period of one year and requested him that invest at least Rs.25,00,000/- either on interest or an investment in the business as a partner with 1/3rd share of profit and told to executed consent agreement as a guarantee Simple Mortgage Deed, Partnership Deed and Mortgage by deposit of the title 5 C.C.No.32179/2010 deeds of the property flat No.7 in the complex called Nisarga Shelters located at Marathalli. The assurance made by the accused No.1 the CW-1 and CW-4 given the his wife cheques to the accused persons. On 21.04.2006 the accused No.1 drawn the amount from the State Bank of Mysore bearing cheque No.002514 of Rs.15 lakhs and bearing cheque No.011291 of Rs.10 lakhs to his and his wife account. The accused No.1 to 3 joined together made criminal conspiracy on 10.08.2009 executed the rental agreement of Flat No.605 to the accused No.2. On 17.09.2009 the accused No.1 to 3 assuring to the complainant that they will pay profit and invested amount of Rs.25 lakhs to him they collected Simple Mortgage Deed, Partnership Deed and original sale deed of property No.07 of Nisarga Marthahalli by deposit of the title deeds and took the signature on the stamp paper as CW-1 and CW-4 received the amount and destroyed the documents. Thereafter, they neither pay the profit nor invested to amount to him, When they demanded to the said documents and amount to the accused persons but they have gave life threat to them and thereby the accused person has committed the criminal breach of trust and cheated the complainant and committed the above offences. 6
C.C.No.32179/2010 After completion of the investigation the PI of Yeshavanthapura Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused person for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 201, 120(B), 506 read with section 34 of IPC.
3. Thereafter, the complainant has lodged the complaint in Yeshavanthapura Police station. In turn they have registered the case under Crime No.0514/2009. Thereafter, police visited the spot, drew the mahazar, secured in the presence of the accused persons subsequently the accused persons enlarged on bail. Thereafter, on completion of the investigation, I.O. has submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons for the above said offences. After filing the charge sheet, Court has taken cognizance of the offences against the accused persons and issued summons to them.
4. The accused persons have appeared before the court through their counsel. Copy of the prosecution papers were furnished under Section 207 of Code of Criminal procedure. Thereafter, heard both side, the charges framed against the accused persons for the offence punishable under sections 406, 420, 201, 120(B), 506 read with section 34 of IPC. Read over 7 C.C.No.32179/2010 and explained to the accused persons were pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution have examined the five witnesses as PW-1 to PW-5 and got marked ten documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10. The accused persons did not choose to lead defense evidence. The statement of the accused person under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., is recorded. The accused counsel got marked the document as Ex.D-1 through the PW-2 cross examination.
6. Heard the arguments from both side and perused the deposition and documents.
7. After hearing the parties and on perusal of records, the following points arose for my consideration.
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 introduced herself to the complainant by telling she is working as a Telephone Operator at State Bank of Mysore and her husband running a 8 C.C.No.32179/2010 Comfort Home In Private Guest House and gained trust on her. The CW-4 is the owner of Flat No.605, NGV Complex, B Block, Kumaradhara, Koramangala.
The accused persons approached him to take the said flat on rent. The flat was let out to her as per the rental agreement. She used to approach him that for temporary financial assistance for taking up additional PG accommodation, towards payment of advances and providing facilities in such accommodation. During April 2009 the accused No.1 approached him with the proposal of procuring a 100 single bedroom accommodation in Electronic City for providing PG Accommodation to the students of M/s.Aptech Computers (P) Ltd., coming from Nigeria stating that a substantial amount of Rs.70,00,000/- is required to be paid towards advance 9 C.C.No.32179/2010 for the premises and for providing the necessary furniture and fixtures to accommodate 100 students. The accused No.1 also informed that a sum of Rs.14,000/- per student per month is receivable for providing PG Accommodation inclusive of food and there will be substantial profit in the said business. The said contract is for a minimum period of one year and requested him that invest at least Rs.25,00,000/- either on interest or an investment in the business as a partner with 1/3rd share of profit and told to executed consent agreement as a guarantee Simple Mortgage Deed, Partnership Deed and Mortgage by deposit of the title deeds of the property flat No.7 in the complex called Nisarga Shelters located at Marathalli. The assurance made by the accused No.1 the 10 C.C.No.32179/2010 CW-1 and CW-4 given the his wife cheques to the accused persons. On 21.04.2006 the accused No.1 drawn the amount from the State Bank of Mysore bearing cheque No.002514 of Rs.15 lakhs and bearing cheque No.011291 of Rs.10 lakhs to his and his wife account. The accused No.1 to 3 joined together made criminal conspiracy on 10.08.2009 executed the rental agreement of Flat No.605 to the accused No.2. On 17.09.2009 the accused No.1 to 3 assuring to the complainant that they will pay profit and invested amount of Rs.25 lakhs to him they collected Simple Mortgage Deed, Partnership Deed and original sale deed of property No.07 of Nisarga Marthahalli by deposit of the title deeds and took the signature on the stamp paper as CW-1 and CW-4 received the amount and destroyed the 11 C.C.No.32179/2010 documents. Thereafter, they neither pay the profit nor invested to amount to him, When they demanded to the said documents and amount to the accused persons but they have gave life threat to them and thereby the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under section 406 read with section 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the above said date, place and time the accused No.1 for the purpose of cheating introduced herself to the complainant by telling she is working as a Telephone Operator at State Bank of Mysore and her husband running a Comfort Home In Private Guest House and gained trust on her.
The CW-4 is the owner of Flat No.605, NGV Complex, B Block, Kumaradhara, 12 C.C.No.32179/2010 Koramangala. The accused persons approached him to take the said flat on rent. The flat was let out to her as per the rental agreement. She used to approach him that for temporary financial assistance for taking up additional PG accommodation, towards payment of advances and providing facilities in such accommodation.
During April 2009 the accused No.1 approached him with the proposal of procuring a 100 single bedroom accommodation in Electronic City for providing PG Accommodation to the students of M/s.Aptech Computers (P) Ltd., coming from Nigeria stating that a substantial amount of Rs.70,00,000/- is required to be paid towards advance for the premises and for providing the necessary furniture and fixtures to accommodate 100 students. The 13 C.C.No.32179/2010 accused No.1 also informed that a sum of Rs.14,000/- per student per month is receivable for providing PG Accommodation inclusive of food and there will be substantial profit in the said business. The said contract is for a minimum period of one year and requested him that invest at least Rs.25,00,000/- either on interest or an investment in the business as a partner with 1/3rd share of profit and told to executed consent agreement as a guarantee Simple Mortgage Deed, Partnership Deed and Mortgage by deposit of the title deeds of the property flat No.7 in the complex called Nisarga Shelters located at Marathalli. The assurance made by the accused No.1 the CW-1 and CW-4 given the his wife cheques to the accused persons. On 21.04.2006 the accused No.1 drawn the 14 C.C.No.32179/2010 amount from the State Bank of Mysore bearing cheque No.002514 of Rs.15 lakhs and bearing cheque No.011291 of Rs.10 lakhs to his and his wife account. The accused No.1 to 3 joined together made criminal conspiracy on 10.08.2009 executed the rental agreement of Flat No.605 to the accused No.2. On 17.09.2009 the accused No.1 to 3 assuring to the complainant that they will pay profit and invested amount of Rs.25 lakhs to him they collected Simple Mortgage Deed, Partnership Deed and original sale deed of property No.07 of Nisarga Marthahalli by deposit of the title deeds and took the signature on the stamp paper as CW-1 and CW-4 received the amount and destroyed the documents. Thereafter, they neither pay the profit nor invested to amount to him, When they demanded to the said 15 C.C.No.32179/2010 documents and amount to the accused persons but they cheated to the complainant and thereby the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under section 420 read with section 34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the above said date, place and time the accused No.1 to 3 joined together with common intention destroyed the executed consent agreement, Simple Mortgage Deed, Partnership Deed and original sale deed of property No.07 of Nisarga Marthahalli by deposit of the title deeds and took the signature on the stamp paper as CW-1 by assuring to pay their invested amount and profit and thereby the accused have committed the offence punishable under section 201 read with section 34 of IPC? 16
C.C.No.32179/2010
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the above said date, place and time when they demanded to pay the invested amount and profit to accused persons they gave life threat to them and thereby the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under section 506 read with section 34 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the above said date, place and time the accused No.1 introduced herself to the complainant by telling she is working as a Telephone Operator at State Bank of Mysore and her husband running a Comfort Home In Private Guest House and gained trust on her. The CW-4 is the owner of Flat No.605, NGV Complex, B Block, Kumaradhara, Koramangala. The 17 C.C.No.32179/2010 accused persons approached him to take the said flat on rent. The flat was let out to her as per the rental agreement. She used to approach him that for temporary financial assistance for taking up additional PG accommodation, towards payment of advances and providing facilities in such accommodation. During April 2009 the accused No.1 approached him with the proposal of procuring a 100 single bedroom accommodation in Electronic City for providing PG Accommodation to the students of M/s.Aptech Computers (P) Ltd., coming from Nigeria stating that a substantial amount of Rs.70,00,000/- is required to be paid towards advance for the premises and for providing the necessary furniture and fixtures to accommodate 100 students. The accused No.1 also informed that a sum of 18 C.C.No.32179/2010 Rs.14,000/- per student per month is receivable for providing PG Accommodation inclusive of food and there will be substantial profit in the said business. The said contract is for a minimum period of one year and requested him that invest at least Rs.25,00,000/- either on interest or an investment in the business as a partner with 1/3rd share of profit and told to executed consent agreement as a guarantee Simple Mortgage Deed, Partnership Deed and Mortgage by deposit of the title deeds of the property flat No.7 in the complex called Nisarga Shelters located at Marathalli. The assurance made by the accused No.1 the CW-1 and CW-4 given his wife cheques to the accused persons. On 21.04.2006 the accused No.1 drawn the amount from the State Bank of Mysore bearing cheque 19 C.C.No.32179/2010 No.002514 of Rs.15 lakhs and bearing cheque No.011291 of Rs.10 lakhs to his and his wife account. The accused No.1 to 3 joined together made criminal conspiracy on 10.08.2009 executed the rental agreement of Flat No.605 to the accused No.2. On 17.09.2009 the accused No.1 to 3 assuring to the complainant that they will pay profit and invested amount of Rs.25 lakhs to him they collected Simple Mortgage Deed, Partnership Deed and original sale deed of property No.07 of Nisarga Marthahalli by deposit of the title deeds and took the signature on the stamp paper as CW-1 and CW-4 received the amount.
Thereafter, they neither pay the profit nor invested to amount to them and thereby the accused have made wrongful gain and cause loss to them and thereby the accused persons have committed the 20 C.C.No.32179/2010 offence punishable under section 120(B) read with section 34 of IPC?
6. What order?
8. Heard the arguments from both side and perused the materials available on records.
9. My findings to the above points are as follows:
POINT No.1 : In the NEGATIVE.
POINT No.2 : In the NEGATIVE.
POINT No.3 : In the NEGATIVE.
POINT No.4 : In the NEGATIVE.
POINT No.5 : In the NEGATIVE.
POINT No.6 : As per final order, for the
following:-
REASONS
10. Point Nos.1 to 5: These above points are inter-
linked with each others and required similar type of
appreciation of evidence, Hence, they are taken together for common discussion.
21
C.C.No.32179/2010
11. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined five witnesses as PW-1 to PW-5 i.e., the PW-1 is the complainant, the PW-2 is the wife of PW-1, PW-3 is the witness, PW-4 is the investigation officer, PW-5 is the Retired ASI and got marked the documents i.e., Ex.P-1 to 10, Ex.P-1 is the Complaint, Ex.P-2 is the Mahazar, Ex.P-3 and 4 are the Copy of State Bank of Travancore statement, Ex.P-5 is the Syndicate Bank letter, Ex.P-6 is the Original Lease Deed dated 21.02.2003, Ex.P-7 is the Original Lease Deed dated 10.02.2007, Ex.P-8 is the Copy of Letter dated 01.04.2009, Ex.P-9 is the letter of State Bank of Mysore and Ex.P-10 is the FIR.
12. The case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 introduced herself to the complainant by telling she is working as a Telephone Operator at State Bank of Mysore and her husband running a Comfort Home In Private Guest House and gained trust on her. The CW-4 is the owner of Flat No.605, NGV Complex, B Block, Kumaradhara, Koramangala. The accused persons approached him to take the said flat on rent. The flat was let out to her as per the rental agreement. She used to 22 C.C.No.32179/2010 approach him that for temporary financial assistance for taking up additional PG accommodation, towards payment of advances and providing facilities in such accommodation. During April 2009 the accused No.1 approached him with the proposal of procuring a 100 single bedroom accommodation in Electronic City for providing PG Accommodation to the students of M/s.Aptech Computers (P) Ltd., coming from Nigeria stating that a substantial amount of Rs.70,00,000/- is required to be paid towards advance for the premises and for providing the necessary furniture and fixtures to accommodate 100 students. The accused No.1 also informed that a sum of Rs.14,000/- per student per month is receivable for providing PG Accommodation inclusive of food and there will be substantial profit in the said business. The said contract is for a minimum period of one year and requested him that invest at least Rs.25,00,000/- either on interest or an investment in the business as a partner with 1/3rd share of profit and told to executed consent agreement as a guarantee Simple Mortgage Deed, Partnership Deed and Mortgage by deposit of the title deeds of the property flat No.7 in the complex called Nisarga Shelters located at Marathalli. The assurance made by the 23 C.C.No.32179/2010 accused No.1 the CW-1 and CW-4 given the his wife cheques to the accused persons. On 21.04.2006 the accused No.1 drawn the amount from the State Bank of Mysore bearing cheque No.002514 of Rs.15 lakhs and bearing cheque No.011291 of Rs.10 lakhs to his and his wife account. The accused No.1 to 3 joined together made criminal conspiracy on 10.08.2009 executed the rental agreement of Flat No.605 to the accused No.2. On 17.09.2009 the accused No.1 to 3 assuring to the complainant that they will pay profit and invested amount of Rs.25 lakhs to him they collected Simple Mortgage Deed, Partnership Deed and original sale deed of property No.07 of Nisarga Marthahalli by deposit of the title deeds and took the signature on the stamp paper as CW-1 and CW-4 received the amount and destroyed the documents. Thereafter, they neither pay the profit nor invested to amount to him, When they demanded to the said documents and amount to the accused persons but they have gave life threat to them and thereby the accused person has committed the criminal breach of trust and cheated the complainant and committed the above offences. After completion of the investigation the PI of Yeshavanthapura Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused 24 C.C.No.32179/2010 person for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 201, 120(B), 506 read with section 34 of IPC.
13. To bring the home the guilt of accused persons the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Under Section 406 of IPC.
Sec. 406 of I P C Reads as follows:
Section 406 : Punishment for criminal breach of trust.- Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with both. Essential ingredients:- an offence under this section has following essential ingredients;
1. Accused was entrusted with some property.
2. Accused had dominion over certain property.
3. Accused (i) misappropriated, (ii) converted to his own use, (iii) used or disposed off that property or willfully suffered any person to dispose off that property. 25
C.C.No.32179/2010
4. Accused did in violation of (i) any direction of law, (ii) any legal contract express or implied relating to carrying out the trust.
5. He did so dishonestly.
14. To bring the home the guilt of accused persons the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Under Section 420 of IPC.
Sec. 420 of I P C Reads as follows:
Section 420 : Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
1. Essential ingredients are as follows;
1. Accused cheated the complainant.
2. Accused did so dishonestly.26
C.C.No.32179/2010
3. Thereby induced the complainant:
(i) to deliver some property to accused or to some other person.
(ii) to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of the valuable security or anything which was signed, sealed, and which was capable of being converted into valuable security.
2. One of the ingredients of cheating as defined in Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code is existence of an intention of making initial promise or existence thereof from the very beginning of formation of contract. S.V.L. Murthy v/s. State Rep. By CBI, Hyderabad, 2009 (4) Supreme 399 : 2009 (7) JT 385 : (2009) 6 SCC 77 : (2009) 2 SCC (Crl) 941 : AIR 2009 SC 2717.
3. To constitute an offence under section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly include the person deceived (I) to delivery any property to any person, or (ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security). Md. Ibrahim v/s. State of 27 C.C.No.32179/2010 Bihar, 2009 (6) Supreme 470 : 2009 (11) JT 533 : 2009 (4) Crimes 13 : (2009) 3 SCC (Crl) 929.
15. To bring the home the guilt of accused person the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Under Section 506 of IPC.
Sec. 506 of I P C Reads as follows:
Punishment for criminal
intimidation.- Whoever commits the
offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc -- and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, of with imprisonment for a term which may extend 28 C.C.No.32179/2010 to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
16. To bring the home the guilt of accused person the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Under Section 120B of IPC.
Sec.120B of I P C Reads as follows:
Punishment of criminal conspiracy.-
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
29
C.C.No.32179/2010
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal
conspiracy other than a criminal
conspiracy to commit an offence
punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
17. To bring the home the guilt of accused person the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Under Section 201 of IPC.
Sec. 201 of I P C Reads as follows:
sec;-201;-Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.- Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from 30 C.C.No.32179/2010 legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false;
If a capital offence.-- shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; If punishable with imprisonment for life.-- and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;31
C.C.No.32179/2010 If punishable with less than ten years imprisonment.-- and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.
18. PW-1 is complainant, who has deposed in his chief examination that he know the accused. The accused No.1 was the Telephone Operator in their Bank. she was running PG Accommodation under name and style Comfort Homes jointly with her husband in National Games Village Complex, Koramangala. He know CW.4 who is his wife. The accused No.3 was working as Manager of accused No.1 PG accommodation. The accused No.2 was close friend of accused No.1. The accused No.1 had given some of accommodation 2000 rooms to accused No.2. During the year 32 C.C.No.32179/2010 February 2002 the accused No.1 with her husband came to his flat at Kumaradhara Block . After purchasing the said flat for himself in the year 2002 and he was painting the same flat. The accused No.1 and her husband wanted his flat on rental basis for their accommodation. At time they did not disclosed as to they want to occupy for PG accommodation for students. He deposed that The accused No.1 has taken premises from him for PG hostel, she sub rent the said premises to accused No.2 for business purposes. He came to know about the same very later. She was running several P.G accommodations. For that business purpose, she used to take hand loans from him and she was prompt in returning the said amount. It was continued for about 6 years. In the year 2009, she came with a business proposal to accommodate 100 Nigerian students who came to Bangalore for higher studies. The total cost of the project was Rs.70 Lakhs. Subsequently they discussed and fixed the project for Rs.50 Lakhs. She approached him to invest Rs.25 Lakhs by creating a partnership deed with himself and accused No.1. Accordingly he had issued 2 cheques one for Rs.15 Lakhs dated 21.04.2009 drawn by him and another cheque for Rs.10 33 C.C.No.32179/2010 Lakhs dated 21.04.2009 drawn by my wife. When he persuade at the project she say that she is expecting orders from the Nigerian Government. The said cheque amount was collected by accused No.1 and she was accompanied by accused No.3 on 06.05.2009 from his house. On 08.05.2009 the accused No.1 encashed the cheques through Syndicate Bank, NGV complex branch. In the month of June 2009 himself and his wife visited the house of accused No.1 to collect the rent, she did not give the rent and stated that she is going to vacate the premises. In our partnership deed there was an agreement that out of the share of profit of Rs.5.50 Lakhs she will give me Rs.1,50,000/- per month and balance will be retained by her. But she refused to give his share for Rs.25 Lakhs she mortgaged one flat to her situated at Nisarga Complex, Marathahalli. She said that she is not going to pay the rent and will vacate the premises. The lease deed expired in the month of September 2009. She did not give the rent, so he told her to pay the share of the profit. She said that she wont give and told to collect the amount through court. Subsequently he came to know that she sublet the premises to accused No.2 to run the PG accommodation. On hearing that 34 C.C.No.32179/2010 Kathyayani is going to vacate the flat accused No.2 with accused No.3 came to his house requesting him to let out the premises to accused No.2. The accused No.2 also promised him that she got long standing association with accused No.1 and she will help him to recover loan amount from accused No.1 who refused to pay for long time. He agreed to let out his premises to accused No.2 and executed a lease agreement from 01.09.2009. On 21.04.2009 the accused No.1 gave him title deed of flat No.7 situated in Nisarga Shelters near Marathahalli and created simple mortgage in his favour. She sent an acknowledgment in the following date to his residential address. Even though both accused No.2 and 3 promised to recover the amount from accused No.1, they never did any help. But accused No.2 came to his house and told him to part with the documents and producing these documents to accused No.l and she will collect a sum of Rs.31.50 Lakhs from accused No.1 and handover to him. For the said purpose, she wanted me to issue a stamped receipts to accused No.1 to ensure payment. But on 19.09.2009, accused No.2 took him to NGF complex and asked him to wait there for collecting the amount. At 10.45 PM she told that the 35 C.C.No.32179/2010 Jayanagar police people seized the money. Subsequently she did not allowed him to visit Jayanagar PS nearly for a months. The accused No.3 preferred a claim stating that the money belongs to her. After verifying the whole situation he found there is a collusion among all the accused. He handed over entire documents to accused No.2 on 17.09.2009 which was given by accused No.1. Subsequently all the accused No.1 to 3 stopped contacting him.
19. During the course of cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused No.3. The PW-1 deposed that that he is having 37 years of experience in banking service. He admitted that he was retired as a Regional Manager of SBM, he admitted that during his service he has sanctioned the several loans. He admitted that during his service he had attended the court cases. In the year 2003 he came to know that about the accused No.3 was the Manager of Comfort Homes being run by the accused No.1. He admitted that in his all transactions was transacting only accused No.1. He admitted that he had entered into Mortgage Deed with the accused No.1. He admitted that while entering into 36 C.C.No.32179/2010 transaction into accused No.1 he followed all his banking service experience. He admitted that in the complaint or his examination in chief he has not stated that the accused No.3 assured to get sanction from Aptech Computer. He admitted that in the complaint he has not stated that on 19.09.2009 the accused No.2 took him to NGF Complex and asked him to wait there for collecting amount and at about 10.45pm. He admitted that accused No.1 declined to give money and asked into go Court for recovery of money. He admitted that the Ex.P-6 lease deed has been executed by his wife in favour of the accused No.1 husband and Ex.P-7 has been executed by his wife PW-2 in favour of the accused No.1. He admitted that as per the said lease deed there is no monitory transaction with the accused No.3. He admitted that in the complaint or his examination in chief he has not stated as to accused No.3 had commercial interest with the transaction taken place between him and accused No.1. He admitted that the accused No.3 was employee of accused No.1. He admitted that the Ex.P-1 drafted by his Advocate. He admitted that he has filed OS No.5901/2010 before City Civil Court CCH-39 against the accused No.1 for recovery of money. He admitted that in that 37 C.C.No.32179/2010 suit I have not made accuse No.3 as a party. He admitted that the said suit was dismissed.
20. During the course of cross examination by the accused No.2, PW-1 deposed that ,He know the accused No.2 since 10 years. The accused No.3 introduced accused No.2 to him. The accused No.2 is not party to the agreement. He admitted that his wife is the owner of the apartment and also he admitted that the lease cum rental agreement has been executed between his wife and accused No.1 on 01.02.2003. The accused No.1 was the said apartment from 2003 to 2009. Witness volunteers that from 2003-2006 accused No.1 was in the said apartment. On that basis of lease agreement executed in favour of accused No.1's husband and after his demise, the fresh lease agreement was executed in the year 2006. He visited the apartment at that time the accused No.2 was sub-tenant to accused No.1. They did not issued any notice to accused No.1. The accused No.1 vacated the apartment in August 2009. On 01.09.2009 he executed fresh lease agreement in favour of accused No.2 and he was running PG accommodation. up to 24.01.2011 she was running PG 38 C.C.No.32179/2010 accommodation. In between that period she did not issued any notice to him. He issued notice to accused No.2 to vacate the premises since she was not paying the rents. He admitted that the accused No.2 replied to their notice and in the reply notice told that she is ready to vacate the premises if he return the advance amount. Except this, he had money transaction with accused No.2. She had given four post dated cheques towards advance amount.
21. The PW-2 is the wife of PW-1, who has deposed in her chief examination that she was retired as Deputy Manager, State Bank of Travancore. PW-1 is her husband. He was retired as Assistant General Manager in State Bank of Mysore. The accused no.1 came to their flat in Koramangala and asked house on rental basis. In February 2003, herself and her husband rented a house to accused No.1 and they came to know that accused No.1 sub pledged the house to accused No.2. The accused No.3 is the manager of accused No.1 in her office. The accused No.1 used to take loan from them whenever she needed for her business purpose. She used to return in on time. But in 2009, she approached them with a 39 C.C.No.32179/2010 business for 100 Nigerian Students from Aptec Computers Ltd for pay in guest accommodation. She needed Rs.70 Lakhs for her business and for that purpose she approached for a partnership business with us for Rs.25 Lakhs. She promised she will give 1/3 of the profit to them. So, they paid 2 cheques, one from my account for Rs. 10,00,000/- from State Bank of Travancore, Indiranagar branch and one from her husband's account for Rs.15,00,000/- from State Bank of Mysore, Mathikere Branch. Subsequently in the month of October when they approached her for the income from business, she said she has not prepared to the money and go to court. She stopped meeting them and attending their calls. From 2003-2009 they had a very good friendship relationship. Once this money is paid to the accused No.1, she stopped talking to them and meeting to them. The accused no.3 informed them that accused No.1 sub pledged their flat to accused No.2, then in August 2009 the agreement with the accused No.1 is over. They gave an new agreement with accused No.2 for that flat from 01.09.2009. The accused No.2 took a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from them and she did not paid the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for the flat. The accused 40 C.C.No.32179/2010 No.2 was due for Rs.2,00,000/- for them. By that time accused No.3 approached them told them that the accused No.2 has very good influence with accused No.1 and both accused No.2 and 3 will collect the money from accused No.1 and give it to them. They waited for long time, and nothing happened. Whenever they called them neither they couldn't collected their money and did not attend their call and stopped meeting them. So, all the three together purposefully planned and cheated them. So, they filed a joint complaint against the accused persons. The Accused No.2 and 3 came to his house and collected the original documents and receipts for Rs.25 lakhs. Further the accused No. 2 and 3 told that, received amount from accused No.1 after they have told that, give the amount. But, till today the accused No.2 and 3 didn't gave the amount. The accused No.2 and 3 handover the his documents to the accused No.1. The said documents are Deed of Mortgage, Deed of Partnership and receipt. Thereafter, they have not give the amount and shop the meetings. Further, the accused persons didn't took her phone calls. In this regard she gave the statement to the Police.
41
C.C.No.32179/2010
22. During the course of Cross examination by the Learned Sr.APP, PW-2 admitted that when they were call the accused No.2 to return original documents, he threatened to her and also harassed to her husband and give life threat to her husband.
23. During the course of the cross Examination by Sri.K.B.L. Advocate for accused No.1 PW-2 admitted that her husband is a retired Assistant General Manager, State Bank of Mysuru, also she retired as a Deputy Manager of Travancore, herself and her husband highly educated and know the financial transaction and consequences. She admitted that after 2003 herself and her husband having financial transaction between the accused No.1 and having good relationship with her. She admitted that on 10.08.2009 they entered to the sale agreement with accused No.2. She denied the suggestion that on 17.09.2009 the accused No.1 did not paid the entire amount to her husband and her husband put the signature to settlement agreement on 17.09.2009. The accused No.2 and 3 did not return the original documents and also amount. She denied the suggestion that, even though 42 C.C.No.32179/2010 the accused No.1 paid the full amount to her husband, herself and her husband colluded with the accused No.2 and 3 to extract the more amount from accused No.1 and lodged the false case and deposed the false evidence against the accused No.1. She denied the suggestion that herself and her husband filed the civil case against the accused No.1 and it was already closed. Witness voluntary stated that her husband was died. Hence, she could not attend the case proceedings. She denied the suggestion that she filed the false case due to that suit was dismissed for non prosecution. She denied the suggestion that she appoint the GPA holder to represent her case. Witness voluntarily stated that she was in the station and also she was not feeling well. The witness identified her husband signature in the affidavit and the said affidavit is marked as Ex.D-1 and her signature is marked in Ex.D-1(a). She is not aware of the facts of Ex.D-1. Despite of aware of the facts of Ex.D-1 intentionally she deposed the false evidence before this Court. She is not aware the accused No.1 filed the case before Lokayuktha against the investigation officer. She denied the suggestion that the accused No.1 no 43 C.C.No.32179/2010 involved any criminal activities with respect to this court and she is not aware about the civil suit of OS No.5901/2010.
24. PW-3 is the eye witness, who has deposed in his chief examination that he knew the PW-1 and PW-2 from 2008 to 2010. He lived in PW-1 house on rent. The CW-2 lived in the house behind PW-1. He used to come home at 05.30 to 6.00 pm. After finishing the work every day he used to leave there in the ground floor. He further deposed that the accused No.2 and 3 come to PW-1 house when they came they were talking about money transactions since he was with my child. I did not participate in their conversation but he cannot say exactly what they were talking about. Few days later the Police came to the building where they lived and when he was questioned about the incident he gave a statement at that time the Police got the documents shown now signed the said document is spot mahazar and it has already marked as Ex.P- 2 and his signature is marked as Ex.P-2(b).
25. During the course of cross examination by the learned Sr.APP pw3 admitted that people who came to PW-1 house that day were Manjula Rajagopal and Meera Santhosh. 44
C.C.No.32179/2010 The said day 2 nd and 3 accused came to PW-1 house and told rd them about the accused No.1 and about the original documents. He further deposed that at that time the accused wrote the simple mortgage deed, original sale deed or property No.7 of Nisarga Marathahalli acknowledge in the receipt of Rs.25 lakhs. He further deposed that , that day the accused No.2 and 3 did not given any amount to the PW-1. He further deposed that the accused persons who had told them that they would take the money from the accused No.1 and return it. He did not come back and PW-1 returned money without getting a signature on stamp paper giving money back to the PW-1.
26. During the course of Cross Examination by the accused No.3 counsel, PW-3 deposed that, he was staying in the building of PW-1 from October 2007 to December 2010. Father of CW-2 had his own house in the same area because he was acquainted with the CW-1 presently. He lived in Hoodi, Whitefield. He admitted that the PW-1 told him to come to the Court today. It is not true that we came to Court together The PW-1 and he did not discuss this case. He 45 C.C.No.32179/2010 further deposed that he put the signature to the Ex.P-2 in the house of PW-1. He further deposed that when he went to PW- 1 house to pick up his child he ask the accused No.2 and 3. He knew the name of the accused No.2 and 3 previously. He further deposed that there was a discussion between the PW-1 and the accused person. He don't know write and read the Kannada Language. He don't know name of the Police received his statement. He denied the suggestion that there is no transaction between the accused persons and the PW-1 and he denied the suggestion that deposing false evidence to the help of the PW-1.
27. During the course of Cross Examination by the accused No.2 counsel PW-3 deposed that he was tenant in the complainant premises from 2007 November to December 2010. His native place is Kerala. He came to Bengaluru in May 2007. The Police have not issued any notice to him. He admitted that at that time he himself and his wife are both working. He admitted that during the work they were unable to take care of their child, witness voluntary stated that they had a Naani and his mother to look after his child. He 46 C.C.No.32179/2010 admitted that when they were went to the office their child was in the complainant house. He admitted that he is unable to read the contents of Mahazar as it is Kannada Language. He was involved in their talking he has not signed any document before them.
28. PW-4 is the investigation officer who has deposed in his chief examination that on 24.11.2009 he received a case records from the CW-6 and continued the investigation. On the same day the complainant brought some copies of document and present before him. That on 07.12.2009 he had given a request letter to produce the same document from Syndicate Bank on 09.12.2009. He had given a letter regarding transfer of money from Syndicate Bank, on 14.12.2009 had given a request letter to the SBM Bank, Ambedkar Veedhi, Koramangala Branch to provide information regarding the stamp paper. That on 22.04.2010 the accused persons brought the anticipatory bail from the court and appeared and on the same day he obtained their voluntary statement. That on 25.06.2010 another one accused by name Meera Santhosh obtained anticipatory bail 47 C.C.No.32179/2010 from the court and produced it. The same day he received the voluntary statement of Meera Santhosh. After he transfer the case records to the CW-8. The witness identified the report marked as Ex.P-9 and his signature is marked as Ex.P-9(a).
29. The PW-4 admitted in his cross examination that he did not obtained any document and materials against the accused No.3 during their investigation. It is not correct that they have include the accused No.3 at the investigation of the complainant.
30. PW5 is the Retired ASI who has deposed in his chief examination that, on 23.11.2009 he received the complaint from the CW-1 and registered the crime No.514/2009 and submitted the FIR to the Hon'ble Court and his higher officer. The witnesses identified his signature in the Ex.P-1 complaint. Witnesses signature marked as Ex.P-1(c). The witnesses identified the FIR marked as Ex.P-10 and his signature marked as Ex.P-10(a). He identified his signature in the ExP-2 Mahazar his signature marked as Ex.P-2(c). In the presence of the CW-2 and 3 from 1.30 pm to 2.30pm he drawn the mahazar. The incident place shown by the CW-1. He further 48 C.C.No.32179/2010 deposed that for the purpose of further investigation he transferred the case records to the CW-7.
31. PW5 deposed in his cross examination that, he denied the suggestion that on 23.11.2009 the CW-1 not present the station and not filed the any complaint. He denied the suggestion that the Ex.P-2 and 3 created in the Police station. He denied the suggestion that submitted the false FIR and deposed false evidence against the accused person.
32. In the instant case the PW-1 admitted in his cross examination that he had entered into Mortgage Deed with the accused No.1. He admitted that while entering into transaction into accused No.1 he followed all his banking service experience. The PW-2 admitted in her cross examination that, her husband is a retired Assistant General Manager, State Bank of Mysuru, also she retired as a Deputy Manager of Travancore, herself and her husband highly educated and know the financial transaction and consequences..PW-3 admitted in his cross examination that he is unable to read the contents of Mahazar as it is Kannada Language. He was involved in their talking he has not signed any document before them. The PW-4 49 C.C.No.32179/2010 admitted in his cross examination that he did not obtained any document and materials against the accused No.3 during their investigation. It is pertinent to note that the Ex.D-1 document marked by PW-2 in her cross examination she admitted her husband affidavit and signature. The PW-1 stated in his affidavit he himself and accused No.1 had prior financial transaction from the year 2003 onwards and all the prior financial transactions were repaid without default by accused No.1 except one transaction mentioned in the complaint dated 23.11.2009.
33. In this case, the prosecution has failed to elicit anything favorable to it to prove the allegations against the accused No.1 and 3 under sections 406, 420, 120(B), 506 and 201 read with section 34 of IPC. When these being the facts, I am of the opinion that in total the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused No.1 and 3 beyond all reasonable doubt. In view of the same, this court hold Point Nos.1 to 5 in the Negative.
34. Point No.6: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
50
C.C.No.32179/2010 ORDER The accused No.1 and 3 are not found guilty for the offence punishable under section 406, 420, 120(B), 506 and 201 read with section 34 of IPC.
Acting under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure the accused No.1 and 3 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under section 406, 420, 120(B), 506 and 201 read with section 34 of IPC.
The bail bonds and surety bonds executed by them stand canceled.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected, then signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th Day of October, 2025).
(SIDDARAMA.S.) III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW-1: Sri.P.Gopinathan Nair S/o M.Ponnu Pillai; 51
C.C.No.32179/2010 PW-2: Sri.Prasanna G Nair S/o Gopinathan Nair.P; PW-3: Sri.Biju Nanukuttan S/o Late.K.G.Nanukuttan;
PW-4: Sri.Lohith B.N. S/o Nanjegowda B.P.; PW-5: Sri.Mahadevaiah C.R S/o Late.C.S.Revanna;
2. List of witnesses examined for the defense:
- NIL -
3. List of documents exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P-1: Complaint dated 23.11.2009; Ex.P-1(a): Signature of PW-1;
Ex.P-1(b): Signature of PW-2;
Ex.P-1(c): Signature of PW-5;
Ex.P-2: Mahazar dated 23.11.2009; Ex.P-2(a): Signature of PW-1;
Ex.P-2(b): Signature of PW-3;
Ex.P-2(c): Signature of PW-5;
Ex.P-3 and 4: Copy of State Bank of Travancore statement;
Ex.P-5: Syndicate Bank letter dated 09.12.2009; Ex.P-6 : Original Lease Deed dated 21.02.2003; Ex.P6(a) : Signature of accused No.1; Ex.P6(b) : Signature of accused NO1 husband Ex.P6(c) : Signature of PW-2;
Ex.P-7: Original Lease Deed dated 10.02.2007 Ex.P7(a) : Signature of accused No.1; Ex.P7(b) : Signature of PW-1;
Ex.P7(c) : Signature of PW-2;52
C.C.No.32179/2010 Ex.P7(d) : Signature of accused No.3; Ex.P-8 : Copy of Letter dated 01.04.2009; Ex.P8(a) : Signature of accused No.1; Ex.P8(b) : Signature of PW-2;
Ex.P-9: Letter of State Bank of Mysore dated14.12.2009;
Ex.P-10: FIR;
Ex.P-10(a) : Signature of PW-5.
4. List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
- NIL -
5. List of documents exhibited for the defense:
Ex.D-1 : Affidavit of P.Gopinath Nair dated 25.06.2015.
6. List of Materials objects exhibited for the prosecution:
- NIL -
(SIDDARAMA.S.) III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU CITY.