Karnataka High Court
Mrs Dorathy Sheela vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 March, 2022
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.76/2022
BETWEEN:
1. MRS. DORATHY SHEELA
D/O SRI G.HARRY
W/O ARUN DENNIS
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT: NO.982, 9TH CROSS
1ST MAIN, DIWANARAPALYA
BENGLAURU-560 054.
2. MR. G.HARRY
S/O LATE J.A.GABRIEL
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT NO.905/A, 2ND MAIN
9TH CROSSS, DIWANARAPALYA
BENGLAURU-560 054.
3. MR.DENNIS ARUN
S/O RAJASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO.982, 9TH CROSS
1ST MAIN, DIWNARAPALYA
BENGAURU-560 054.
4. MR.JOSEPH AMRITH RAJ
S/O G. IRUDIA RAJ
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
2
R/AT No.870/2
9TH CROSS, DIWNARAPALYA
BENGLAURU 560054
5. MS.CHANDRIKA WILSON
D/O WILSON
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT NO.17, SANKLAP
5TH CROSS, PAMPA EXTN
HEBBAL, KEMPAPURA
BENGALURU-560 024.
6. MRS.HIRLEY SUNITHA
D/O LATE G. IRUDIA RAJ
W/O TILAK
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO 870/2, 3RD MAIN
9TH CROSS, GOKUL EXTENSION
DIWANARAPALYA
BENGLAURU-560 054.
7. MR.SANJAY
S/O LATE MELCHIOR
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT NO.943, 2ND MAIN
3RD CROSS, DIWANARAPALYA
BENGLAURU-560 054.
8. MR.LEELAKRISHNAN
ADVOCATE
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
R/AT NO.807, JYOTHI,
5TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS
VIJAYANAGAR 1ST STAGE
BENGALURU-560 040.
9. MR. MOHAN
S/O LATE NARASIMHAR IYENGAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
3
R/AT NO.1889/8, 4TH MAIN ROAD,
RPC LAYOUT, HAMPINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 040.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W.
SMT. SRI RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE [THROUGH V.C.])
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VIJAYANAGARA POLICE STATION
BENGLAURU-560 040,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING,
DR.B.R.AMBEDAKR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN
THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.310/2021 REGISTERED
BY VIJAYANAGARA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 381, 403, 406, 415,
417, 420, 463, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471, 503 AND 506 R/W.
SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.02.2022, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in respect of Crime No.310/2021 registered by the Vijayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 381, 403, 406, 415, 417, 420, 463, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471, 503 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioners are the close relatives of late Smt.Louisa G Manohari, the Philanthropist. She had achieved remarkable feet in the field of education by starting schools right from LKG to 10th Standard. The late said Louisa G Manohari had acquired the immovable properties and those properties were her self acquired properties. The complainant is the son of Melchoir, the eldest son of J.A.Gabriel. The late Louisa G Manohari started education 5 in the year 1965 and she also acquired some properties and later on it was converted into a Trust in the year 1981. Petitioner No.8 is well acquainted with late Louisa G Manohari from the day one of the starting the institution. And the said late Louisa G Manohari had approached petitioner No.8 to Will her properties and accordingly, in the year 2018, Will was executed and petitioner No.8 had assisted her as an executant of the six Wills. The sad late Louisa G Manohari demised on 22.06.2020 and some of them who have not received any property had indulged in filing the private complaint and the present complaint was also among one and there were two other private complaints and the police have registered the case based on the private complaints wherein an allegation was made that the petitioners herein have indulged in creation of documents and forged the signatures of late Louisa G Manohari at the instance of petitioner Nos.8 and 9 and hence, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing anticipatory bail petition since the bail petition filed before the Sessions Judge was rejected.
6
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that these petitioners have assisted the Investigating Officer but the learned Judge dismissed the bail petition on the ground that the petitioners are not cooperating in the investigation and that apart, the complainant in Cr.No.144/2020 had filed the original suit bearing No.25957/2020, one more suit in O.S.No.25905/2020 and another suit in O.S.No.26607/2020 and all these suits were pending for consideration before the Trial Court. The present complainant also filed a suit for partition which is numbered as O.S.No.3611/2020. The counsel referring to these cases would submits that civil suits are pending for adjudication and in the meanwhile giving a criminal colour to the civil dispute, the present complaint is filed. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for anticipatory bail. These petitioners are permanent residents of Bengaluru and petitioner Nos.8 and 9 are the practicing advocates having good reputation in the society. If the petition is not allowed, there are chances of apprehension of arrest of these petitioners.
7
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also filed the additional facts placing the copy of the FIR in Cr.No.144/2020 and based on the PCR No.66/2021, one more case was registered in Cr.No.130/2021 and also a copy of civil suits plaint and copies of police complaint, police notice, police statements, police endorsements were also produced before the Court wherein also the police have given an endorsement stating that it is a civil dispute and no grounds to register the criminal case.
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that though three cases were registered, in all three cases, the complainants are different i.e., deceased sister, deceased brother's daughter and deceased brother's son and in all the three cases, the petitioners are not the accused and in some of the complaints, only some of the petitioners were accused persons. The learned counsel for the State also brought to the notice of this Court that the new discoveries were found on merits that these petitioners have committed the alleged offences. The main contention of the 8 learned counsel for the State is that the Will was drafted by an advocate-Leelakrishnan who is also one of the petitioner herein and according to him the Will was executed on 18.12.2018 and the same was signed before the advocates i.e., accused Nos.9 and 10 and the same was registered subsequent to the death of testator on 03.08.2020 at Sub-Registrar's office. The complainant also collected the endorsement from the Karnataka State Registration and Stamps Department Official's Multipurpose Cooperative Society Limited regarding stamp papers which were used for creation of Wills and that AC series document papers released and disbursed on 11.06.2020 and not in the year 2018 and The Private Truth Labs Forensic Services also confirmed the signatures and genuineness of the documents. The said report is also clear that the person who wrote the standard signatures marked as S1 to S18 did not write the questions signatures marked as Q1 to Q9 and when such fraud has been taken place and the petitioners are indulging in forgery of the documents and registration of the documents subsequent to the death of the testator, it is clear that with an intention to knock off the properties, these petitioners have 9 indulged in creation of six Wills and registered the same subsequent to the death of the late Louisa G Manohari. In this regard, the counsel also produced the opinion given by the Truth Lab as well as the certificate issued by the Authority of the Stamp Department. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
7. Having hearing the respective counsel appearing for the parties and also on perusal of the material on record it discloses that it is not in dispute that the property originally belonged to late Louisa G Manohari and she is the Philanthropist. The petitioners are claiming that during her lifetime, she had executed the six Wills and subsequent to the death of late Louisa G Manohari, the said Wills were registered. The main allegation against accused No.9 and 10 who are the advocates that they also made the deposition before the Sub-Registrar that during the lifetime of the late Louisa G Manohari the said Wills were executed and other petitioners have also made the deposition before the Sub-Registrar and based on their statement, the said Wills were registered subsequent to the death of the late Louisa G Manohari. The contention of the learned counsel for the 10 petitioners is that three cases were registered and respondents have also not disputed the same and in all the cases, the crime numbers are different i.e., Cr.No.144/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 420, 406 read with Section 34 of IPC, Cr.No.130/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 418, 420, 465, 467, 468, 470, 463 of IPC. In the present crime number in which bail petition is filed, the offences invoked is 381, 403, 406, 415, 417, 420, 463, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471, 503 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. In Cr.No.144/2020 there were five accused persons, in Cr.No.130/2021 there were nine accused persons and in the present crime, there are twelve accused persons and in this crime only, accused Nos.9 and 10 are the advocates who are not the accused in other crime numbers. Accused No.8 is also not an accused in other crime numbers. Apart from that the complainants are different in each crime numbers but the allegations are similarly placed and all the matters are under investigation.
11
8. The main allegation in the complaint is that all these petitioners have created the Wills subsequent to the death of late Louisa G Manohari, the said Wills were registered after her death. But these petitioners are claiming that Wills were executed during the lifetime of late Louisa G Manohari but the allegations in the complaint that no such Wills were executed and documents are created. In order to substantiate the said fact, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State placed the report regarding the stamp paper which was used for creation of the said Wills and those stamp papers were issued in the year 2020 but the said Wills were allegedly executed in the year 2018 and apart from that those Wills were registered subsequent to the death of late Louisa G Manohari. The contention of the respondent is that they have obtained the opinion from the Truth Lab reporting that disputed signatures are not the signatures of late Louisa G Manohari. When such prima facie report is placed before the Court, it discloses that the documents were came into existence subsequent to the death of the testator. The specific allegations are made that these petitioners have indulged in creation of documents and also 12 forging of signature of the deceased. The very allegation of the complainant that the executor who is the advocate also indulged in creation of document and he made the statement before the Sub-Registrar that in his presence and also other advocate, the Wills were executed and hence, mater has to be probed and the matters are under investigation and when such specific allegations are made with regard to the creation of document and forging of signatures, it is a serious offence. The offences, no doubt, are triable by Magistrate, the Court has to look into the factual aspects of the case, seriousness of the allegations and gravity of the offences. Hence, I do not find any grounds to invoke Section 438 of Cr.P.C and it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners.
9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The bail petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE SN