Karnataka High Court
Rajesh Kumar. B. M vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 July, 2022
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3476/2022
BETWEEN:
1. RAJESH KUMAR. B.M.
S/O MUKUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
G-501, HAL COLONY
CENTRAL TOWNSHIP
BENGALURU NORTH
MARTHAHALLI COLONY
BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU-560 037.
2. PRABHAVATHAMMA
W/O MUKUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
No.106, BALE STREET
KATARIPALYA, KOLAR-563101. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE [THROUGH VC])
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KADUGODI POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI H.S.SHANKAR, HCGP)
2
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.76/2021
REGISTERED BY KADUGODI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR
THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss.120B, 420, 447, 465, 467, 468, 471
R/W. 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 on bail in the event of their arrest in respect of Crime No.76/2021 registered by Kadugodi Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 447, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that one C.V. Chandrashekar, who is the father of the complainant, owned a Site bearing No.115 in Maithri Residential Layout, situated at Pattandur Agrahara, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, 3 Bengaluru East Taluk. After his death, all the documents were transferred to his mother name and also in the name of the complainant and they are in enjoyment of the said property and they are also paying the tax and all the properties stand in the name of complainant's mother. It is also an allegation that these two petitioners have created a document of Gift Deed dated 19.05.2020 claiming that the second petitioner is the wife and the first petitioner is the grand son of the said Chandrashekar and also created the Rectification Deed even though they are not the daughter and grand son of the said Chandrashekar. No such daughter in the name of Prabhavathamma to the said Chandrashekar. Based on the created document, indulged in knocking of the property. Hence, a case has been registered invoking the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 447, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of IPC.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the genealogical tree has been given at the time of transferring the property. Now it is not in their custody 4 and this Court earlier directed to place the document to show that the petitioners are the daughter and grand son of the owner of the property - Mr.Chandrashekar. The learned counsel would submit that the property was purchased by Chandrashekar in the year 1985. By that time, Chandrashekar was aged about 51 years. Now, the complainant claims that he is a grand son and his age is 24 years. The very contention of the complainant cannot be believed. Hence, this Court can invoke Section 438 of Cr.P.C., and the petitioners are ready to cooperate with the Investigating Officer for investigation.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that no such daughter to Shri C.V. Chandrashekar and also no grand son and these two persons have created bogus Gift Deed and also the Rectification Deed claiming that they are the daughter and grand son of the said Chandrashekar and indulged in creating of documents. Based on the said created document, got it transferred the property in their name. Hence, there is a fraud on the complainant as well as the forged documents are used as 5 genuine document. Hence, there is a prima facie case against the petitioners and the presence of the petitioners is required to probe the matter and to unearth the crime.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and on perusal of the material available on record, while exercising the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to look into the contents of the complaint. On perusal of the complaint dated 09.04.2021, the complainant claims that he is the son of C.V. Chandrashekar and the property belongs to the said Chandrashekar. The said Chandrashekar was not having any daughter by name Prabhavathamma and the question of grand son to the said Chandrashekar does not arise. The petitioners also not disputing the fact that the property belongs to the said Chandrashekar. But they claim that they are the daughter and grand son. When there is a specific averment that no such daughter, this Court directed the learned counsel for the petitioners to place any material to show that the second petitioner is the daughter of the said Chandrashekar and also to 6 show that the first petitioner is the grand son of Chandrashekar, but no material has been placed before the Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the genealogical tree is placed before the concerned authority for transferring the property. When a specific allegation is made in the complaint that they indulged in creation of document and made use of the said created document and transferred the property. At the inception, a fraud has been alleged against the petitioners. The presence of the petitioners is required to probe the matter and to unearth the crime. In the absence of presence of these petitioners, the very forgery and fraud cannot be investigated. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., in favour of the petitioners.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The bail petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE cp*