Bangalore District Court
Shahina Taj vs T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy on 23 July, 2024
KABC030078252013
IN THE COURT OF VII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2024.
Present : Sri.Puttaraju., B.A.LLB.,
VII Addl. C.J.M., Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT U/s 355 of Cr.P.C
C.C. No.2111/2013
Complainant : State by : Hebbala Police Station .
(By Spl.Asst.Public Prosecutor)
(Sri.Moyeenulla Abbasi- Advocate)
V/s
Accused 1 T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy,
Nos. S/o.late Venkata Reddy,
45 years,
R/at No-176, 1st Main,
1st Cross,Near Sri. Lakshminarsimha
Temple Street, Bhvaneshwari Nagara,
R.T. Nagar, Bangalore.
Presently R/at No-5,
3rd Cross, Bairaveshwara Layout,
Opp-Reefa Home For Girls Child,
Hennuru, Bangalore.
2 C C No.2111/2013
(Sri. Dhanaraj -Advocate)
2:Suguna,
W/o.Jayachandra Reddy,
Age: 39 years,
R/at No-5, 3rd Cross,
Bairaveshwara Layout,
Opp-Reefa Home For Girls Child,
Hennuru, Bangalore.
(Sri.L.Mallikarjuna-Advocate)
Date of occurrence of offence In between 28.02.2012 to
25.07.2012
Date of report of offence 31.07.2012
Name of the Complainant Shaheen Taj
Date of Commencement of 10.02.2014
recording Evidence
Date of Closing of Evidence 11.07.2024
Offences complained of U/s 468, 471, 406, 420, 201
r/w 34 of IPC.
Opinion of the Judge Accused persons
found not guilty.
The Sub-Inspector of Police (Law & Order),
Hebbal Police Station has filed this charge sheet
3 C C No.2111/2013
against accused persons for the offences punishable
U/s 468, 471, 406, 420, 201 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. Brief case of the prosecution is as under :
The case of the prosecution is that accused -1
and 2 with dishonest intention to have wrongful gain
and to cause wrongful loss to CW.1 during 2011
accused -1 get acquainted with CW.1 pretend to help
her by saying that he will lend loan against House
property bearing No. 176, New No.11/1, situated at
South Street, Neelasandra and No.114, situated at
Central Street, Neelasandra on 5.3.2011 for the
purpose of cheating forged the documents concerned
to first property made GPA in the name of CW.1 and
after two days registered the said property in his
name. Again on 14.03.2011 forged the documents
concerned to second property and made Gift Deed in
favour of CW.1 from her mother and thereafter made
GPA in favour of CW.1 thereby both accused -1 and 2
4 C C No.2111/2013
forged the documents. Further after forging the
documents accused gave complaint at Yelahanka
Police Station stating that the property documents
have been lost. On 29.03.2011 obtained loan by
submitting forgery property documents as genuine for
Rs.30 lakhs concerned to first property from Sudha
Co-Opertative Bank and Rs.20 lakhs concerned to
second property from Srinidhi Sahakara Bank and
thereby accused by misusing CW.1's property
documents obtained loan from two banks. After
taking loan from two banks by submitting CW.1's
property documents cheated CW.1 as well as banks
without repaying the loan to banks and CW.1 and
caused disappearance of evidence and thereby
committed the offences punishable U/s. 468, 471,
406, 420, 201 r/w 34 of IPC.
3.Accused No.1 and 2 are on bail. As required
u/sec. 207 of Cr.PC, the copies of the charge sheet
5 C C No.2111/2013
papers were furnished to the accused. Charge was
framed for the offences punishable U/s. 468, 471, 406,
420, 201 r/w 34 of IPC and read over and explained
to the accused in the language known to them.
Accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution,
the prosecution out of 50 witnesses has examined 19
witnesses as PW.1 to 19 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 26
and Mos-1 to 32. On closure of the evidence on the
side of the prosecution, the statement of the accused
u/sec. 313 Cr.PC came to be recorded. In defense, the
accused No.1 got examined himself as DW.1 and
N.Mallikarjuna examined as DW.2 and got marked
Ex.D1 to 20.
5. Heard the arguments. Perused the
documents placed on record.
6 C C No.2111/2013
6. The points that arise for consideration are :
1. Whether the prosecution has proved
beyond all reasonable doubt that
accused No.1 and 2 have committed
the offences U/s. 468, 471, 406, 420,
201 r/w 34 of IPC.?
2. What order ?
7. The above points are answered as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
8.Point No.1 : It is the case of the prosecution
that in the year 2011 accused -1 on pretend by
saying that he will lend loan against House property
forged the documents concerned to first and second
property. Further after forging the documents
obtained loan by submitting forgery property
documents as genuine for Rs.30 lakhs and Rs.20
lakhs. Further accused by misusing CW.1's property
documents obtained loan from two banks. After
taking loan from two banks by submitting CW.1's
7 C C No.2111/2013
property documents cheated CW.1 as well as banks
without repaying the loan to banks and CW.1 and
caused disappearance of evidence and thereby
committed aforesaid offenses.
9. The prosecution in order to prove its case, out
of 50 witnesses cited in the charge sheet, examined 19
witnesses as .PW.1 to PW.19. CW.1 is the complainant
examined as PW.1, in her chief examination she
deposed that when she was searching purchaser to sell
her house property to discharge balance loan amount
of Rs.2,70,000 availed by LIC Finance, one Udaykumar
introduced brokers Kamatha and Madhukrishna, in
turn, they introduced one Manjunath, then Manjunath
gave her Rs.5,00,000 by which she repaid loan and get
back documents pertaining to her house which were
kept in LIC Finance and handed over it to Manjunath.
He told her that he will get loan from bank on the
basis of that document, but he has not obtained loan,
instead of that, he introduced accused No.1 saying
8 C C No.2111/2013
that he will secure loan from Bank because he is well
known to managers of several Banks. After 15 days
accused No.1 came to her house with Kamatha and
Madhukrishna, they introduced accused No.1 that he
is good person, will secure the loan from Banks, so do
what he say. Accordingly, she proceeded with accused
to get loan through him, as such, accused No.1
contacted managers of Banks and return back saying
that no loan will be given by the banks as area of that
house property is in block list and she is Muslim
community. Then he stated that if she executed sale
deed in his name, he will get the loan on that
document after that he will execute memorandum of
understanding in her name. Since she was need of
money urgently, she agreed the same and executed
sale deed. Thereafter, accused No.1 neither returned
amount by getting loan nor executed memorandum of
understanding as he promised. In the month of
December 2012 she came to know about some people
9 C C No.2111/2013
in the local discussing her house property is came to
be sale, then she came to know from the bank that
accused availed loan od Rs.20,00,000/- from Sudha
Co-operative Bank on the that property, then she went
to house of accused with xerox copies of loan
documents and asked accused No.1 about said loan,
for which he stated that yes availed loan because he
was financial in difficulty.
10.PW.1 in the cross examination deposed that
she has given complainant against accused No.1 only
not against accused No.2 since she had no business
with accused No.1 and does not know for what reason
accused No.2 is impleaded. She studied up to 9 th
standard and well aware about english language and
she gave the complaint in the english language. The
two sale deeds executed by her in favour accused No.1
were also in the same language, but she denied the
suggestions that she never read said sale deeds, she
put her signatures only. Further, she deposed that she
10 C C No.2111/2013
has filed O.S.No.1245/2017 against accused No.1, but
she is not aware status of said suit, whether it was
dismissed or not and petition is filed for restoration of
said suit. Further, she deposed that she neither stated
before sub-registrar nor lodged complaint as to non
receipt sale consideration by the accused No.1. She
denied the suggestions that she get executed
memorandum of understanding by accused No.1 by
forcibly in respect of two house properties. She
deposed regarding herself entering into agreement with
Syed Ansar and Ajmal Ahmad and cancelled it and but
she did not mention therein as to property sold to
accused No.1. She never lodged complaint before police
even after came to know that accused No.1 said to
have been cheated her. Further she deposed that she
gave complaint only when she was called upon by the
ACP of Hebbal Police Station.
11.CW.5 is the daughter of PW.1 examined as
PW.2. In the chief examination she deposed regarding
11 C C No.2111/2013
house properties sold by her mother to accused No.1
believing the his say that he will secure the loan if her
mother executed sale deed in favour of him and then
he turned up, thereby cheated her mother, which was
told by her mother. In the cross examination she
deposed that she heard transaction of her mother with
accused only from her mother. She has not stated
before police as to Kamath came to her house with
accused No.1 and Udaykumar, Bharath Kumar
narrated financial difficulties of her mother to accused
No.1 and accused No.1 pacified her mother saying
don't worry, will help her mother.
12.CW.25 is another witness said to have been
cheated by the accused examined as PW.3. In the
examination in chief he deposed that when he was
need of money, accused No.1 introduced by
Bharathkumar and accused No.1 told that he has no
money at present, he will obtain loan and give it, if he
executed registered sale deed in his name in respect of
12 C C No.2111/2013
site property situated at Meenakshi Layout which
stands in the name his wife, then PW.3 believing word
of accused No.1 himself and his wife executed
registered sale deed in favour of accused No.1 without
receiving money, but he did not pay loan amount
availed from bank and thereby accused No.1 cheated
PW.3. In the cross examination version of PW.3 is
different from what he has stated in chief examination,
what he stated that himself and his wife received the
sale consideration amount of Rs.13,00,000/- from the
accused No.1 and he never stated before sub registrar
about non receipt of sale consideration.
13.CW.20 is the another witness said to have
been cheated by accused No.1 examined as PW.4. In
the examination in chief he deposed that in the year
1977 his father had purchased a site No.170 situated
at K G Nagar, Bengaluru, in which he constructed a
house by availing loan and discharged said loan. In the
year 2010 when he was need of money to discharge
13 C C No.2111/2013
loan availed for business from SBI, White Field Branch
since he could not paid it due to loss of business,
when he was searching purchaser to sell his house
property, at that time one Bharathkumar was
introduced by Ramappa and he told that value of
house property would be Rs.80,00,000/. Then
Bharathakumar agreed to help in getting loan from
bank and informed to secure all documents. As such,
PW.4 went to office of Bharathkumar with documents,
where Bharathkumar introduced accused No.1 saying
that he is his classmate, he will help in getting loan.
Accordingly, on 18.07.2010 when he went to house of
accused No.1 as called upon by Bharathakumar
through phone, wherein the accused No.1 by seeing
documents told that within 15 days loan will be
arranged, be ready with documents. On 22.07.2010
they came with documents which were typed in
english, obtained the signatures of himself, his wife
and children and also obtained signature of another
14 C C No.2111/2013
son who was in Tumkur Jail in Kidnap case. On
24.07.2010 himself, his wife and children were taken
away by the accused No.1 and Bharathakumar to sub
registrar office of Basavanagudi, where they taken
signatures of him, his wife and children and then
taken to office of Mahadevappa advocate and get their
signatures on some documents there also and
maintained to those documents do not reach him.
Again on 17.08.2010 and 18.08.2010 taken them to
court saying to make affidavit and finally availed loan
by mortgaging property and gave him Rs.10,000, later
he came to know from Albert that they availed loan of
Rs.45,00,000/- and thereby he was sheeted by the
accused. In the cross examination PW.4 deposed that
he get executed GPA by his wife and children before
Notary advocate as per Ex.D.2 so as to execute the sale
agreement to accused No.1 agreeing sell house
property for consideration of Rs.29,10,000/- as per
Ex.D.4 sale agreement and as such, as per Ex.D.4 he
15 C C No.2111/2013
received Rs,10,00,000/-, 15,00,000/- from accused
No.1. When he failed to execute sale deed as per the
terms of agreement, the accused No.1 filed suit for
specific performance of contract and said suit ended in
compromise and he executed sale deed in favour of
accused as per the terms of compromise. Further he
deposed that cheque given to him at the time of
execution of sale deed was for collateral purpose of
loan and accused No.1 taken back said cheque and he
has not stated so before police and denied the
suggestion that cheque drawn by him.
14.CW.16 examined as PW.5, during chief
examination, he deposed that accused No.1 was
residing opposite to his house, his mother and wife
were not in good terms, the wife of accused No.1 by
making use such situation, it was told to his mother
by accused No.1 that if she get the documents in
respect of house No.1057 situated Jayanagar in the
name his wife Leela, daughter-in-law will turn with
16 C C No.2111/2013
good term, then his mother executed sale deed in
favour of Leela and thereby his mother was cheated by
the accused No.1.
15. CW.44, CW.45 and 46 are the police officials
examined as PW.6, 7 and 13 respectively. These
witnesses have deposed that there was information
from CW.50 that accused No.1 and 2 are
Bhyraveshwara Lay out and then themselves along
with CW.41 to 43, 47 and 48 went to Hennur Lay out
at 10.30PM and arrested accused No.1 and 2, brought
them to police station. In the cross examination they
denied the suggestions that they are deposing false
even though they have not went to Hennur Lay out
and arrest the accused and seeing the accused before
court for the first time.
16. CW.18 is another witness said have been
cheated by the accused No.1 examined as PW.8. In the
chief examination he deposed that when he came to
know the fact from TV and Newspaper that accused
17 C C No.2111/2013
No.1 is arrested by the police, he went to police
station, where ACP informed that how much money
should come to whom, then he told by giving lease
agreement that accused No.1 told that he will pay
Rs.3,500 in every month, believing his word, he
handed over key of house to accused No.1 and
according he gave a cheque for Rs.3,500, but it was
bounced, then he lodged complaint before Hebbal
Police, they gave NCR. In the cross examination, he
deposed that the accused No.1 had filed a suit against
him, he has filed written statement by his advocate
and order has been passed directing him to hand over
the lease documents to accused No.1. He has not
taken any steps regarding cheque bounce and keep
quite till arrest of accused and then went to police
station and narrated said facts before police.
17. CW.8 is the witness who introduced the
accused No.1 to complainant examined as PW.9. In the
chief examination he deposed that when CW.1 was in
18 C C No.2111/2013
need of money to discharge loan availed by LIC
Finance, he introduced one Manjunath through
Udaykumar and made sale agreement with him for
sale of house property, CW.1 received Rs.5,00,000 by
that time, out of that, paid Rs.4,00,000/- to LIC and
get released documents and handed over it to
Manjunath. Since Manjuantha was not able to adjust
money to purchase the property, he introduced the
accused No.1 to CW.1 saying that he will clear all
transaction of CW.1. Further, when accused came to
know the fact that officials of BBMP making galata
with CW.1 for not paying tax he paid Rs.50,000/- and
after one month CW.1 executed registered sale sale
deed as per Ex.P.2 in favour of accused No.1, he
signed as witness to sale deed. In the sale deed it was
mentioned sale consideration as Rs.52,50,000/-, it
was not paid by accused No.1 to CW.1 in his presence,
he gave statement before police in this regard. In the
cross examination he has stated that he does not know
19 C C No.2111/2013
to whom CW.1 executed sale agreement before
executing sale deed to accused No.1. He identified the
sale agreement held between CW.1 and Manjunath as
Ex.D.9, sale consideration mentioned as
Rs.40,00,000/- therein. He does not know the
complaint lodged by CW.1 before Hebbal Police.
18.CW.22 is the another witness said to have
been cheated by the accused No.1 examined as PW.10.
In the chief examination he deposed that in the year
2012 when he was need of money, he approached
accused No.1 since he knows him through real estate
agency. The accused No.1 told him that in order to get
the loan from bank he has to execute sale deed in
respect of his sites bearing No.65, 74 and 75, before
that he will execute MOU in your favour. Accordingly,
the accused No.1 executed MOU in his favour and then
he executed sale deed in favour of accused No.1 in
respect of said sites on 29.05.2012. Thereafter, when
he asked money, the accused No.1 told that he will
20 C C No.2111/2013
give in the month of June and gave two cheques for
Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/-, but those cheques
have been bounced and then he lodged complaint
before Kothnuru Police. Later he came to know that
one site No.65 is sold by accused No.1 to one
Subramanyashetty for consideration of Rs.75,00,000/-
and also came to know that accused No.1 cheated
CW.1 when she came to Kothnur Police Station to
lodge complaint. He gave statement before police in
this regard. In the cross examination PW.10 stated
that he doing real estate business and getting
commission at 2 percent, he has not stated before sub
registrar regarding non receipt of sale consideration by
the accused No.1 and not taken any steps in that
regard. He denied suggestions that deposing false
against accused.
19. CW.27 is the another witness said to have
been cheated from the hands of accused No.1
examined as PW.11. In the chief examination PW.11
21 C C No.2111/2013
deposed that he is Barber by profession, in order to do
own business, he availed loan of Rs.12,00,000/- from
UCO Bank by mortgaging documents of his brother's
house property, but due to loss of business he has not
repaid loan and then he decided to sell his site
situated at Nagarabhavi. His far relation one
Venkatesh doing real estate business at R T Nagar, he
approached Venkatesh to sell his site, said Venkatesh
in turn, introduced accused No.1 saying that he will
purchase site. Thereafter, accused No.1 came to site,
negotiation was held, finally fixed rate at Rs.2400 per
square feet. At the time of registration he asked sale
consideration amount of Rs.12,00,000, the accused
No.1 and Venkatesh told that money will not be given
until registration of sale deed, after completion of
registration accused No.1 by showing cheque for
Rs.50,00,000/- has stated that he will get money in
next week and pay, when he refused, Venkatesh
undertakes that he will pay money. Later when he
22 C C No.2111/2013
contacted accused No.1 through phone, the accused
No.1 threatened by saying that he is having gun and
he will finish you, then he lodged complaint before
police and given statement as stated above. In the
cross examination, PW.11 stated that he has not taken
any steps regarding non receipt of sale consideration
by the accused No.1. He does not know some clash
between venkatesh and accused No.1. He denied the
suggestion that lodged false complaint on the
instigation of Venkatesh.
20. CW.47 is the police official who deputed to
serve the notice to the witnesses examined as PW.12.
In the chief examination he deposed that as per the
directions of P I he went to the spot to serve the notice
to witnesses, but they were not in their address, then
he recorded the statement of neighbors and report it to
P I as per Ex.P.3. In the cross examination he denied
the suggestion that prepared Ex.P.3 at police station.
23 C C No.2111/2013
21. CW.49 is SHO examined as PW.14. In the
chief examination he deposed that on 31.07.2012 at
4.30PM he received the complaint as per Ex.P.1 from
CW.1 and registered the case as per Ex.P.4. In the
cross examination he stated that he has not made any
inquiry regarding who has written the complain, delay
for lodging complaint and not mentioned the reason for
delay in column 3(c) of FIR and denied the suggestions
that himself prepared Ex.P.1 at station.
22. CW.33 and 31 are the witnesses to the seizer
mahazar examined as PW.15 and 18 respectively. In
the chief examination they deposed regarding seizer of
32 files from the house of accused No.1 by the police
officials on 18.12.2012 by drawing seizer mahazar as
per Ex.P.5 and they identified 32 seized files. In the
cross examination PW.15 has stated that when he was
at Hebbal bus stand police took him to police station,
he was there at police station from 9.30AM to 10.30
AM, where the police have inquiring the accused No.1.
24 C C No.2111/2013
He does not know the boundary of spot from where 32
files have been seized. He does know those files. He
denied the suggestions that deposing false evidence
though he has not went to spot and police have not
seized files in his presence. In the cross examination
PW.18 has denied suggestion that deposing false
evidence though he has not went to spot and police
have not seized files in his presence.
23.CW.37 is the Sub-registrar, Basavanagudi
examined as PW.16. In the chief examination she
deposed that she received a letter from Hebbal Police
Station seeking certified copies document
No.1408/2010-2011 dated 07.03.2011 and document
No.9/2011-2012 dated 05.04.2011 and accordingly
she issued certified copies of said documents as per
Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.6. In the cross examination she stated
that she made registration of Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.6 after
inquiry of both parties. The complainant has not
stated before her that she has not received sale
25 C C No.2111/2013
consideration and registered those documents only
after consent of the complainant.
24. CW.50 is the investigating officer examined as
PW.19. In the examination in chief he deposed that he
written a letter to Sub-registrar, Shanthinagar seeking
certified copies of documents registered in the year
2011-2012 as per Ex.P.10. He has given notice to
witnesses to sale deed and gift deed calling them for
inquiry. He has also given notices to witnesses as per
Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.23. CW.39 who deputed to serve the
notice to witnesses reported as per Ex.P.3 stating that
said witnesses are not residing in the addresses
mentioned in the notice. He has seized relevant
documents from accused on basis of his voluntary
statement and obtained documents from manager of
Sudha Co-operative Bank, Shanthinagar Sub-registrar
and recorded the statements of witnesses and after
completion of investigation has filed charge sheet
against the accused. In the cross examination, out of
26 C C No.2111/2013
32 files seized during investigation, file No.1 having 1
to 34 pages which contains payment receipt of
Bharathkumar, sale agreement dated 27.10.2010
executed by accused No.1 to Arindraswamy, sale
agreement held between accused No.1 and
Bharathkumar and another sale agreement held
between them and he identifed said documents and
same has been marked as MO-1. File No.2 having 1 to
44 pages which contains sale deed executed by S
Lakshminarayana to accused No.1, original sale deed
executed by Harinath to S Lakshminarayana, BBMP
Khatha Extract, E C, Tax paid receipts and RTC. He
identified said documents and same has been marked
as MO-2. File No.3 having 1 to 67 pages which
contains sale deed executed by Krishnareddy to
accused No.1, xerox copies of GPA and affidavit, sale
agreement and other papers. He identified said
documents and same has been marked as MO-3. File
No.4 having 1 to 75 pages which contains documents
27 C C No.2111/2013
relating to property of Muniyappa such as xerox copies
of sale deed, MR, EC, RTC, PAN Card and order of
Land Acquisition officer. He identified said documents
and same has been marked as MO-4. File No.5 having
1 to 7 pages which contains documents relating to
property of Noor Pasha. He identified said documents
and same has been marked as MO-5. File No.6 named
as Neelasandra Sale agreement having 1 to 24 pages
which contains three sale agreement of various dates
relating to property. He identified said documents and
same has been marked as MO-6. File No.7 named as
Margadarshi Co-operative Bank and Yelahanka Police
Complaint having 1 to 4 xerox copies of complaints
and NCRs. He identified said documents and same has
been marked as MO-7. File No.8 named as Venkatesh's
file having 1 to 40 pages which contains documents
relating to property of Venkatesh such as zerox copies
of sale deed, indemnity bond, tax paid receipts, Khatha
Extracts. He identified said documents and same has
28 C C No.2111/2013
been marked as MO-8. File No.9 named as Suguna
D/o Ramareddy, Neelasandra property having 1 to 32
pages which contains documents, such as xerox copies
of sale deed, Gift deed, GPA, etc,. He identified said
documents and same has been marked as MO-9. File
No.10 having 1 to 44 pages which contains documents,
such as xerox copies of sale deed, sale agreement, tax
paid receipts. He identified said documents and same
has been marked as MO-10. File No.11 named as
Krishnareddy having two pages which contains sale
agreement. He identified said documents and same
has been marked as MO-11. File No.12 named as MCB
loan full paid having 1 to 25 pages which contains
documents, such as receipts, deposits of title deed. He
identified said documents and same has been marked
as MO-12. File No.13 named as Varthur Property sale
agreement having 1 to 135 pages which contains
documents, such as zerox copies of GPA, MR and
plaint in OS No.876/2012. He identified said
29 C C No.2111/2013
documents and same has been marked as MO-13.
Further, in the same manner, he identified documents
contained in File No.15 to 31 and same have marked
as MO-15 to MO-31.
25. In the further chief examination, he identified
file No.32 and deposed regarding seizure of said 32
documents in the presence of CW.31, 32, 33 by
drawing mahazar. Further deposed regarding
statements of witnesses recorded by him on various
dates, memo of undertaking obtained from Sub-
registrar as per Ex.P.26. In the further cross
examination, he stated that he has seen Ex.P.2 and
Ex.P.6 sale deed, in which it is not stated that sale
consideration is not paid by accused No.1, but the
complainant in her complaint has stated that she has
been cheated by the accused. He denied the
suggestions that during investigation even though he
came to know that accused have not committed any
30 C C No.2111/2013
offence as alleged without verifying the document filed
false charge sheet against the accused.
26. In defense side, the accused No.1 examined
as DW.1. In the chief examination, he deposed that in
the year 2011 CW.1 told him that she intended to go to
Dubai along with her family member by selling south
street and central street property. Both properties are
having separate sale deed, and as such, negotiation
was held and fixed value to south street property as
Rs.52,50,000/-, both of them entered into sale
agreement, he paid Rs.50,000/- as advance sale
consideration to CW.1 and paid remaining balance sale
consideration at the time of execution of sale deed. He
further purchased central street property of CW.1 for
consideration of Rs.74,00,000/-. Thereafter, CW.1
started demand more money saying that she sold said
properties for lessor amount and made galata, in this
regard he lodged complaint before police which was
registered as Crime No.121/2011, even after lodging
31 C C No.2111/2013
compliant CW.1 has continued her attitude and finally
with help of family members kidnapped accused No.1
and police have filed B report in the said crime. After
kidnap, obtained signatures of accused No.1 on
Memorandum of Understanding, he narrated the same
to Mallikarjuna advocate who came with CW.1, there
were 10 rowdies along with CW.1 while getting
signature on MOU. Further, deposed when he was in
jail, CW.1entered into sale agreement with Syed Ansar
and Ajmal Ahmed on 25.04.2015 agreeing to sell the
said properties. The suit filed by CW.1 in O S
No.4480/2012 against him has been dismissed. He
knows V R Rajendra, he purchased the Kottigehara
property belongs to Prabha who is wife of Rajendra
from her for consideration of Rs.13,50,000/-, except
this transaction even though nothing is there with
Rajendra, he filed complaint and same is pending. He
deposed regarding purchased the property of
Leelavathi in the name his wife Leela for consideration
32 C C No.2111/2013
of Rs.17,00,000/-, suit filed by her son Kumar
questioning said sale deed as O S No.1949/2006,
preferred RFA No.607/2021 before Hon'ble High Court
questioning said judgment passed in the said suit
Hand RFA No.1296/2021 filed against Kumar. The
documents relating to said proceedings have been
marked as Ex.D.10 to 19. In the cross examination, he
stated that in the year 2011 he paid tax, he is not
remember whether sale consideration amount paid to
CW.1 is mentioned in the income tax return or not.
The proceedings initiated against him are relating
cheating committed by him. He was having that much
of sale consideration amount of Rs,1,22,50,000 and
produced the documents in that regard. He denied the
suggestions that he has made fraud to several persons
as deceived to CW.1.
27. One Mallikarjuna advocate on behalf defence
side, examined as DW.2. In the chief examination he
deposed that Rehamathull advocate of CW.1 told that
33 C C No.2111/2013
he need to register MOU pertaining to both properties
and informed to come to sub-registrar office of
Neelasandra. Accordingly, he went to sub registrar
office on 15.09.2012, wherein, he signed as drafted by
me on the draft copy of MOU which is already prepared
and brought by said Rehamathulla after reading its
contents. Thereafter, by seeing wound under the eyes
of accused No.1 asked him, what happened, he stated
that he was kidnapped to get the execution of MOU
register and lodged complaint before Hebbal Police in
this regard. In the cross examination, he stated that he
is having 24 years practice as an advocate, before
going to draft any documents verification is required,
but he has not verified MOU. He denied suggestions
that without verifying document mere signing as
drafted by me is an offence and he is deposing false
evidence to help the accused No.1 since he is
representing the accused No.2 in this case.
34 C C No.2111/2013
28. The learned counsel appearing for
complainant has argued that PW.1 has to lodged the
complaint before the ACP because of the reasons that
accused -1 is very influenced person, on the basis of
which the police have registered the case against the
accused. When the complainant was in need of
financial assistance, one Kamath brought accused -1
with CW.1, the accused -1 had paid Rs.50,000/- to the
PW.1. Except that amount no payment is made by the
accused -1 even after getting two Sale Deeds executed
by PW.1 in respect of two house properties for total
consideration of Rs.1,26,50,000/-. Apart from that out
of 19 witnesses cited in the charge sheet 9 witnesses
are suffered by the hands of accused -1, which shows
the conduct of accused -1 that he is habitual in
cheating. Accused -2 is committed the offenses what
offenses committed by the accused -1 because she
has kept the original documents of said house
properties in her house and thereby she committed
35 C C No.2111/2013
offence. As per the evidence of DW.2, he signed the
Memorandum of Understanding prepared by the
advocate of complainant and not prepared it. DW.2
being an advocate he is not supposed to say like that,
he should have verify the documents by getting
information from the persons, who requested to draft a
document. It is further argued that if really accused -1
is not cheated why he has executed the Memorandum
of Understanding. The documents produced by the
accused -1 regarding dismissal of civil suit filed by
PW.1 will not prevail over the criminal case. The
accused -1 is involved in cheating nearly about Rs.42-
50 crores and cheated several persons in the same
nature of offenses of this case, since the date of
execution of Sale Deeds the complainant is in
possession of both house properties.
29. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
accused -1 has argued that the prosecution has cited
50 witnesses in the charge sheet , out of that 19
36 C C No.2111/2013
witnesses have been examined as PW.1 to 19. The
charge leveled against the accused is for the offenses
punishable U/s 468, 471, 420, 201 r/w 34 of IPC. So
far as offense u/sec.201 of Cr.PC., is concerned, PW.1
got South Street property through HIBA as stated by
herself in the Ex.P2 and she got central Street property
through HIBA from her father as stated by herself in
the Ex.P6 Sale Deed .Further on the point of
jurisdiction it is argued that properties are situated at
jurisdiction of Vivek Nagar Police Station, the
complaint was lodged by PW.1 before Hebbal Police
Station, there is no instruction from Police
Commissioner why complaint is not transferred to
local jurisdictional Police Station.
30. It is further argued that, as per Ex.D.10 CW.1
has filed suit O S No.1245/2017 against accused No.1
seeking cancellation both sale deeds and made a Deed
of Declaration as per Ex.D.12. Ex.P.26 Memorandum
of Understanding is the document said have been
37 C C No.2111/2013
executed by the accused No.1 is false, that documents
has been get registered by the accused No.1 forcibly by
kidnapping, in this regard the accused No.1 lodged
complaint before police as crime No.121.2011. If really
CW.1 get executed the MOU by the accused, there was
no necessity to file a suit O S No.1245/2017 as per
Ex.D.10 against accused No.1 seeking cancellation
both sale deeds and made a Deed of Declaration as per
Ex.D.12. Moreover MOU is not discussed in the said
suits. The documents palced by the accused No.1
regarding purchase of properties would shows that he
had sufficient fund to purchase properties of CW.1
under Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.6 and more over sub registrar
clearly deposed that after consent of CW.1 proceeded
to register the documents. Further, regarding seizer of
documents by PW.19 under seizer mahazar it is
argued that PW.15 and 15 are deposed in support of
prosecution case, the version stated in their cross
examination is contradictory to each other and not
38 C C No.2111/2013
corroborated with evidence of PW.19 and evidence of
these witnesses will not help the prosecution case.
31. Upon careful perusal of material on record in
the light of submission made by the learned counsel
for the parties reveals that admittedly, the House
property bearing Old No. 176, New No.11/1, BBMP
No.1/1, Ward No.69, South Street, Neelasandra,
Bengaluru (herein after referred as 'South Street
Property' for brevity), Bengaluru originally belongs to
father of PW.1, who purchased it under registered Sale
Deed dated 26.06.1967 and thereafter he gifted it to
PW.1 under the gift deed dated 20.12.1994 and
another house property bearing Old No.114, New
No.11, BBMP No.11, Ward No.69, situated at Central
Street Cross, Neelasandra, Bengaluru (herein after
referred as 'Central Street Property' for brevity)
originally belongs to mother of PW.1, who purchased it
under registered Sale Deed dated 3.10.1973 and
39 C C No.2111/2013
thereafter she gifted it to PW.1 under gift deed dated
14.03.2011.
32.The PW.1 executed registered Sale Deed as
per Ex.P2 on 7.3.2011 to the accused -1 for
consideration Rs.52,50,000/- in respect of Central
Street property in favour of accused -1. Thereafter on
2.4.2011 as per Ex.P6 PW.2 along with family
members have executed Sale Deed in favour of
accused -1 in respect of South Street property for
consideration of Rs. 74 lakhs to get the loan as
promised by the accused -1 so as to discharge the loan
availed from LIC Finance.
33. The complainant executed Ex.P.2 sale deed in
respect south street property to accused No.1 on
07.03.2011, after that on 02.04.2011 she executed
another sale deed Ex.P.6 in respect of central street
property, believing the words of accused No.1 that he
will obtain loan from bank and give money, the gap
between two sale deeds is nearly one month. At this
40 C C No.2111/2013
stage it would be pertinent to mention here that if a
common man is need of money urgently and for that
he executed document, his immediate response would
be ask money from whose favour document is
executed. In this case, no material on record to show
that the complainant neither approached accused No.1
seeking money immediately after execution of first sale
deed nor even after execution of second sale deed.
Further, second sale deed was executed on 02.04.2011
and the date of complaint lodged by the complainant is
25.07.2012 and complaint is registered on 31.07.2012,
so after lapse of one year complaint is filed and
moreover as deposed by the CW.1 she lodged
complaint only when she was instructed by the
Assistant Commissioner of Police to come to Police
station and lodge complaint not voluntarily. It makes
clear from the evidence that CW.1 lodged complaint as
per the instruction of Assistant Commissioner of
41 C C No.2111/2013
Police. Beside, no explanation for inordinate delay of
more than one year by the prosecution.
34.Further, admittedly Ex.P.1 complaint is in the
language of english written by the complainant, the
evidence of CW.1 has been recorded through the
translator translating from english to Kannada, so she
is very well in english. In the cross examination she
deposed that she did not read the contents of Ex.P.26
sale deed since it was in english language. Therefore,
in view of discussion above the evidence of CW.1 is
doubtful and does not inspire confidence.
35.The evidence of PW.3 to 5, PW.8 to 11 and 16
is related to transaction held by them with accused
No.1, such transactions are appears to be civil in
nature and not related to the facts of this case, in the
absence of reliable and cogent evidence to show that
said witnesses have been cheated by accused
argument of learned counsel for the complainant that
said witnesses are cheated from the hands of accused
42 C C No.2111/2013
No.1 and his conduct shows he is habitual offense in
the same nature of offense of this case cannot be
acceptable, it is therefore, evidence of these witnesses
will not help the prosecution case to prove nexus
between transaction held between accused and
complainant.
36.The evidence of PW.15 and 18 relates to
Ex.P.5 seizer mahazar in their presence of PW.19
seized 32 documents from the house of accused No.1,
evidence of these witnesses is contradictory to each
other and not corroborate with evidence of IO as
argued by the learned counsel for the accused No.1.
37.The evidence of PW.12, PW.14 pertaining to
registration of case as per Ex.P.4 FIR by receiving the
Ex.P.1 complaint from CW.1 and deputed to serve the
notice to witnesses, in turn reported it PW.19, does not
help to prove the offense leveled against accused.
38.The evidence of PW.19 I O pertaining to
investigation of the case submitted charge sheet. The
43 C C No.2111/2013
documents seized from the house of accused during
investigation are related to transaction held with
accused No.1 by the whose name referred in the said
documents and said transaction are appears to be civil
in nature. The properties are situated at Neelasandra
within the jurisdiction of Vivek Nagar Police Station
and crime is registered at Hebbal Police Station, it is
not the case of prosecution that transaction held
within the limit of Hebbal Police Station and no
explanation by the IO in this regard, which creates
doubt.
39.So far accused No.2 is concern except
evidence on record that documents were in her house,
nothing on record to show involvement of accused
No.2.
40.The Memorandum of Understanding is
executed by accused No.1 to the complainant in
respect of two house properties along with other
properties on 15.09.2012. The accused No.1 lodged
44 C C No.2111/2013
complaint before Hebbal Police on 01.05.2012 alleging
that complainant and her family member are
threatened his life by saying that they will kidnap him,
which is registered as per Ex.D.11 FIR. Thus it is clear
from the said documents that complaint is lodged
before 4 to 5 months earlier to execute MOU assuming
his kidnap, the version of the accused No.1 relying on
said evidence that he was kidnapped and get executed
MOU is not believable. Therefore, in view of discussion
made above, the considered opinion is of the court that
the prosecution has not been able to prove the offenses
alleged against the accused beyond reasonable doubt
and the benefit of doubt should be given to accused.
Hence, this court has answered the above point in the
Negative.
41. Point No.2 : In view of the discussion made
above, accused-1 and 2 found not guilty, Hence, I
proceed to pass the following :
45 C C No.2111/2013
ORDER
Acting U/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/s. 468, 471, 406, 420, 201 r/w 34 of IPC.
Bail bonds of accused and their surety bonds stand cancelled after six months from today.
Office is hereby directed to return MO-1 to 32 with due acknowledgment to the accused -1 after appeal period is over .
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized by her, revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 23 rd day of July, 2024) ( PUTTARAJU ) VII Addl. C.J.M., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the Complainant :
PW.1 Shahin Taj
46 C C No.2111/2013
PW.2 Noorayisha
PW.3 Rajendar.V.R.
PW.4 Venkatesh
PW.5 Kumar
PW.6 Kemparaju
PW.7 Kurubara Kariyajja
PW.8 Mariya
PW.9 Sadananda Kamath
PW.10 Satyanarayana
PW.11 Lakshmi Narayan PW.12 Narasimhan PW.13 Shabnaz Jahan PW.14 Basavaraj Patil PW.15 K.Suresh Kumar PW.16 Honnamma Rani.R PW.17 Narasimhegowda PW.18 Sathyakumar PW.19 Mohammed Sharieff 47 C C No.2111/2013 List of documents marked for the Complainant :
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.2 Sale Deed
Ex.P.3 Witness Statement
Ex.P.4 FIR
Ex.P.5 Seizure Panchanama
Ex.P.6 Copy of Sale Deed dtd 2.4.2011
Ex.P.7 Letter from Society dated
12.12.2012
Ex.P.8 Letter dated 15.12.2012 written to
Hebbal police
Ex.P.9 Letter dated 05.11.2012
Ex.P.10 Letter dated 08.10.2012
Ex.P.11 Copy of notice given to Mirja
Ex.P.12 Copy of notice given to Sheik Nisar
Ahmed.
Ex.P.13 Copy of notice given to Krishna
Reddy
Ex.P.14 Copy of notice given to
D.V.Raghurama Reddy
Ex.P.15 Copy of notice given to Vikas.
Ex.P.16 Copy of notice given to Ranjith
Ex.P.17 Copy of notice given to Bharath
48 C C No.2111/2013
Kumar
Ex.P.18 Copy of notice given to Shankar
Ex.P.19 Copy of notice given to
Narasimhan
Ex.P.20 Copy of notice given to Shanker
Ex.P.21 Copy of notice given to Sheik Nisar
Ahmed.
Ex.P.22 Copy of notice given to Mirja
Ibrahim Beig
Ex.P.23 Reminder
Ex.P.24 Vol untary statement of
accused
Ex.P.25 Letter dated 29.01.2013
Ex.P.26 Letter dated 15.09.2012 copy of
M.O.U.
List of Material Object marked for
Prosecution :
MOs:
1 to 32: 32 files and documents therein.
List of witnesses examined for the Accused DWs:
1.Ramakrishnareddy.T.V.
2.N.Mallikarjun.49 C C No.2111/2013
List of documents exhibited for the Accused :
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of Complaint given to Hebbal Police Station.
Ex.D.2 Certified copy of GPA Ex.D.3 Certified copy of GPA Ex.D.4 Agreement of Sale Ex.D.5 Sale Deed Ex.D.6 Certified copy of letter sent to Jail
Superintendent, Tumkur. Ex.D.7 Certified copy of GPA Ex.D.8 Certified copy of document signed by Jail Superintendent, Tumkur. Ex.P.9 Agreement of Sale Ex.D.10 Certified copies of documents pertaining to O.S. No.1245/2017 Ex.D.11 Certified copies of documents pertaining to Cr.No.121/2012. Ex.D.12 Certified copy of Deed of Declaration dated 18.06.2016 Ex.D.13 Certified copy of cancellation of Sale Agreement dated 25.04.2015 Ex.D.14 Certified copy of Debt free Letter ( 4 pages) Ex.D.15 Certified copies of documents pertaining to OS No.4480/2012 Ex.D.16 Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 26.05.2012 50 C C No.2111/2013 Ex.D.17 Certified copy of RFA No.607/2021 Ex.D.18 Certified copy of RFA No.1296/2021 Ex.D.19 Certified copies of documents pertaining to Crl.Misc.No.422/2022 and Certified copy of Judgment in OS No.1949/2006.
Ex.D.20 Certified copy of Agreement of Sale dated 05.03.2015 VII Addl.C.J.M.,Bengaluru.
51 C C No.2111/2013Judgment pronounced in the open court.
(vide separate order):
ORDER Acting U/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/s. 468, 471, 406, 420, 201 r/w 34 of IPC. Bail bonds of accused and their surety bonds stand cancelled after six months from today.
Office is hereby directed to return MO-1 to 32 with due acknowledgment to the accused -1 after appeal period is over .
7th ACJM, Bengaluru.52 C C No.2111/2013 53 C C No.2111/2013 54 C C No.2111/2013 55 C C No.2111/2013