Bangalore District Court
Sri Umeda Reddy vs State Of Karnataka on 3 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE LXI CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE: BANGALORE CITY (CCH-62)
Dated : This the 3rd day of December, 2018
-: PRESENT :-
SRI. S.A.CHIKKORDE, M.A., LL.M.,
LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 289/2018
Petitioner/accused : Sri Umeda Reddy
S/o.K.G.Yellappa Reddy
Aged about 60 years
R/a.No.440, Dodda Thoguru
Village, Electronic City Post
Bangalore-100
[By Sri.BMD, Adv.)
//VS.//
Respondent/ 1. State of Karnataka
Complainant : By Central Crime Branch
Bengaluru
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Infantry Road
Bengaluru
Rep. by Public Prosecutor
Public Prosecutor
City Civil Court Compound
Bangalore-09.
:ORDERS:
The Revision petitioner/accused herein filed this Petition
under Section 397/399 of Cr.P.C. praying for setting aside the
2 Crl.R.P.289/2018
order dated:24.3.18 passed in Cr No.270/2017 on the file of
learned 1st A.C.M.M., Bangalore, to defreeze the bank account
i.e., Account no.843810310000793, State Bank of India,
No.50, 18th main, 20th Cross, 3rd sector HSR Layout,
Bangalore-102 dt.1.12.2017 belonging to this petitioner and
to pass such other relief's.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to
their respective ranks in the court below.
3. The brief facts of the complainant/petitioner is that
the property bearing old Sy. No.35, measuring 1 acres 19
guntas at Dodda Thoguru Village, Beguru Hobli and was
belongs to one Indramma and her son Prabhakar Reddy. On
the basis of the said ownership, they have sold the said
property in favour of K.G.Yellappa Reddy and his wife
Lakshmamma @ Jayalakshmamma and the same came to be
registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Bangalore South
Taluk, on 17.2.1986. During the life time of Jayalakshmamma
@ Lakshmamma and K.G.Yellappa Reddy had executed a
registered will in favour of their grandsons namely
Sidharth.P.S. Reddy, Vikram P.S.Reddy, sons of Sudhanva
Reddy, Ashok Reddy, S/o.Guruva Reddy and Aruna,
S/o.Umeda Reddy and the same came to be registered before
the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore South Taluk. Jayalakshmamma
@ Lakshmamma died on 30.7.1997. After the death of
Jayalakshmamma her husband K.G.Yellappa Reddy has got
transferred the khatha and other revenue records in his name.
3 Crl.R.P.289/2018
Inorder to avoid misuse of the property, he has entered into a
registered partition deed with his grandsons/namely
Sidharth.P.S.Reddy and Vikram.P.S.Reddy and his sons
namely Guruva Reddy and Umeda Reddy/petitioner and the
same came to be registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Bangalore South Taluk at Bangalore on 24.3.05. During the
course of partition effected in the said family the 'B' schedule
property was allotted in favour of K.G.Yellappa Reddy and 'C'
schedule property allotted to Sidharth.P.S.Reddy and his
brother Vikram.P.S.and 'D' schedule property was allotted
infavour of Y.P.Guruva Reddy and 'E' schedule property was
allotted in favour of Y.P.Umeda Reddy. During the course of
partition it is further held that after demise of K.G.Yellappa
Reddy, 'B' Schedule property allotted infavour of this
petitioner/Umeda Reddy his brother namely Guruva Reddy
and his grandsons in equal manner. After effecting registered
partition deed on 24.3.05 he along with others have filed an
application before the concerned revenue authorities and
transferred khatha in their names. On the basis of revenue
entries, he along with others have also filed an application
before the Survey Authority for the purpose of Phodi by
considering their requests the concerned Survey authority
Phoded Sy. No.35 measuring 1 acre 19 guntas into Sy.
No.35/2, 35/3, 35/4 and 35/5. During the life time of Guruva
Reddy who is none other than 2nd son of K.G.Yellappa Reddy
and his family members are executed a registered release deed
in favour of one Ashok Reddy and the same came to be
registered in the office Sub-Registrar, Jayanagara, (BTM
4 Crl.R.P.289/2018
layout) on 3.4.14. Inview of the these facts and circumstances
narrated, it is crystal clear that the aforesaid K.G.Yellappa
Reddy and Jayalakshmamma @ Lakshmamma were absolute
owners of property in question and also it was their self
acquired property and not as joint family property and
accordingly, no body else having any right, title over the said
property. When such being the matter, the KIADB intends to
acquire a portion of aforesaid property and issued gazette
notification in the year 2015. In pursuance of the same this
petitioner along with others were appeared before the
concerned authority. Wherein one Pushpa and Prajwal Reddy
were appeared by taking contention that, one Pushpa claims
to be 2nd wife and Prajwal Reddy claims to be son of Sudhanva
Reddy and objected the said Proceedings. On basis of
objection statement and also documents available on record
the concerned authority has passed an award to an extent of
2/3rd share in favour of this petitioner and others and
retained 1/3rd share and remitted to Civil Court for further
proceedings, since Pushpa and her son Prajwal Reddy have
filed a suit in O.S. No.714/17 on the file of Principal Sr. Civil
Judge, Bangalore Rural Dsitrict at Bangalore for the relief of
partition and separate possession. By seeing the entire facts
and circumstances of the case, there is no hide and seek and
suppression of the material fact. Vivekanagara Police have
filed FIR report agaisnt Siddhartha.P.S.Reddy and others in
Cr. No.270/17 for an offence punishable under Section 506,
34, 471, 420, 474, 120B, 468, 464 of IPC, on the basis of
complaint lodged by Kathyayini W/o.Late K.Ramakrishna
5 Crl.R.P.289/2018
Shetty R/a. No.16, 'Prestine Magnum' Srinivagilu, 28th Cross,
Ejipuram Main Road, Inner Ring Road, Koramangala,
Bangalore-34 and later the matter transferred to the
complainant police/CCB, Bangalore/1st respondent for further
investigation. The allegations of the complainant Kathyayini
that her parents K.G.Yellappa Reddy and Jayalakshmi are no
more and left behind 8 children and her parents have sold
ancestral properties in Koramangala and purchased land
bearing Sy. No.35, situated at Dodda Thoguru Village on
17.2.1986 and the same was acquired by KIADB for purpose
of Metro and they have awarded approximately 33 crores
compensation and she is entitled for 1/8th share and further
made allegation that Siddhartha.P.S.Reddy and his brother in
collusion with accused No.2 Narasimhaiah who is village
accountant of Dodda Thoguru Circle, Bangalroe South
created fake family tree and produced before concerned
authority. Apart from the same the son of Sudhanva Reddy
created void partition deed dt.24.3.05 along with one
Y.P.Guruva Reddy and Umeda Reddy and produced those
documents before KIADB and the said authority without
verifying the same they have awarded compensation amount
in his favour and others and remitted the said compensation
amount in favour of the petitioner bank and others as per the
documents related to the regarding grant of compensation.
Even though the petitioner is not at all accused in the said
case set to have been filed by the Kathyayini in Cr. No.270/17
on the file of first A.C.M.M. at Bangalore without issue notice
and following proper rules and regulations as contemplated
6 Crl.R.P.289/2018
under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., Without intimating the same the
2nd respondent freeze bank account i.e., A/c.
No.843810310000793, State Bank of India, No.50, 18th Main,
30th Cross, 3rd Sector HSR Layout, bangalore-102, vide
No.RM1/1/1, dt.1.12.17 by exercising powers confirmed
under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., belongs to the petitioner. The
petitioner is no way concerned to the alleged incident and also
FIR in Cr. No.270/17 on the file of 1st respondent. Without
following rules and regulations as contemplated under Section
102 of Cr.P.C., the 2nd respondent had freeze the bank
account belongs to the petitioner. Inorder to defreeze the same
the petitioner has constrained to file an application under
Order 451 and 457 of cr.P.C., before the court below. In
pursuance of the said application, the 1st respondent filed
objection statement and the court below heard the arguments
on the said application. Without looking into the proper
documents and also rulings laid down by various High Courts
and Apex Court blindly rejected the said application on
23.3.18.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has
preferred the present revision petition on the grounds that the
Court below in rejecting application filed under Section 451
and 457 of Cr.P.C., is not maintainable either in law or on fact
and the same is liable to be set aside by the intervention of
this court. There was partition held between the petitioner and
his father on 24.3.2005 now the complainant has filed a
complaint by stating that the document is void and created
7 Crl.R.P.289/2018
documents after lapse of 12 years. The said document i.e.,
registered partition deed is registered document and on basis
several proceedings were took place and the complainant
herein has filed original suit in OS No.214/18 on the file of
Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District at
Bengaluru in the month of March 2018 and sought for
partition and separate possession against this petitioner and
others and the same is pending for adjudication. Apart from
the same one Prajwal Reddy and another who claims to be son
and daughter of one deceased Sudhanva Reddy and they have
filed one more suit in OS No.714/2017 on the file of Principal
Sr. Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District at Bangalore and the
same is pending for adjudication. If really the said document
is forged and created document by this petitioner and others
as alleged by the complainant Kathyayini the competent Civil
Court look over the same and to discard the validity of the
said document and not by the respondent police, since they
have no power to exercise Civil Court Power. Without
considering all these facts by the 1st respondent and blindly
rejected the application filed by him. Accordingly, the order
passed by the court below is liable to be set aside by the
intervention of this Hon'ble Court. It is true that the first
respondent police have empowered to seize the bank account
of any person/s by using powers vested with under Section
102 of Cr.P.C. Unfortunately, the complainant police have not
followed any rules and regulations as contemplated under
Section 102 of Cr.P.C., and also guidelines issued by various
High Courts and Apex Courts while freezing bank account
8 Crl.R.P.289/2018
belongs to the petitioner. The provisions under Section 102 of
Cr.P.C.,
POWER OF POLICE OFFICER TO SEIZE CERTAIN
PROPERTY UNDER SECTION 102,
(a) Any police office may seize any property which
may be allegedly or suspected to have been
stolen or which may have found under
circumstances which create suspicion of the
commission of any offence.
(b) Such police officer, his subordinate to the
officer in charge of a police station shall
forthwith report the seizer to that officer
(c) Every police officer acting under sub section (i)
shall forthwith report the seizer to the
Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the
property seized is such that it cannot
conveniently transported to the court etc.,
The case on hand that the complainant police have
not issued any notice to the petitioner regarding freeze of
the bank account belongs to the petitioner. Apart from
the same the 2nd respondent police have not intimated
regarding freezing of bank account immediately and
forth with to the concerned jurisdictional court.
Accordingly, the act of the 2nd respondent is totally
illegal and contrary to the law and facts. Without
appreciating all these facts and circumstances the court
below blindly rejected the application filed by the
9 Crl.R.P.289/2018
petitioner only on basis of report given by the first
respondent police and accordingly, the order passed by
the court below is liable to be set aside by the
intervention of this court. While addressing arguments
on the said application, the counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner submitted several rulings;
1991 (Cr.L.J) Page No.2798 which reads thus:-
Under Section 102 - Seizer - Power of Officer- Order by
police officer - directing bank not to allow accused to
withdraw the money or property from the accounts and
lockers held by him - not permissible. The concerned
Court taken the view that when the police officer has not
complied law laid down in respect of under Section 102
of Cr.P.C, The case on hand is crystal clear that the 2nd
respondent never issued any notice to the petitioner
before freezing of his bank account or intimated the
same to the jurisdictional court. Even without
considering this ruling the court below has rejected the
application filed by the petitioner and accordingly, the
order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside
by the intervention of this Court. The counsel on behalf
of the petitioner submitted another rulings before the
trial court regarding allowing the application filed by the
petitioner.
2003 Cr.L.J. page 294 - under Section 102 Search
and Seizure - Power of police officer - respondent police
officer passing prohibitory order preventing the
petitioner from operating bank account - Nor allegation
10 Crl.R.P.289/2018
of the prosecution that, property i.e., Bank account it is
a squell to discovery of the commission of offence is not
sufficient to attract under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., further
notice ad contemplated under Section 120(3) was not
given to the petitioner - nor even coy of prohibitory order
was served to the petitioner - non - compliance of
mandatory requirements of under Section 102 - order of
respondent police officer liable to be revoked. The case
on hand is crystal clear that, the 2nd respondent never
issued any notice to the petitioner before freezing of his
bank account or intimated the same to the jurisdictional
court. Even without considering this rulings the court
below has rejected the application filed by the petitioner
and accordingly, the order passed by the court below is
liable to be set aside by the intervention of this court.
The concerned METRO authority has not released the
compensation amount in favour of the petitioner not
only on basis of genealogical tree produced by them as
alleged by the complainant. On the other hand the
compensation amount was released on basis of title
deeds and other relevant documents. In view of these
facts and circumstances is crystal clear that the
petitioner is not at all committed any fraud on the
complainant nor METRO authority. The compensation
awarded to him by the concerned authority by following
due process of law as laid down under KIADB Act and
accordingly, the petitioner is not committed any illegal
act. Without considering all these facts and
11 Crl.R.P.289/2018
circumstances the court below blindly rejected upon the
objection filed by the first respondent and blindly
rejected the application filed by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the order passed by the court below is liable
to be set aside by the intervention of this authority. By
seeking entire complaint filed by the complainant
Kathyayini before the 1st respondent police has not
disclosed any commission of offence committed by this
petitioner. Apart from the same this petitioner is not at
all accused in the said case. Without any offence
committed by the petitioner how the 2nd respondent
freeze his bank account without giving any notice and
also followed rules and regulations as contemplated
under section 102(2) & (3) of Cr.P.C., Unfortunately, the
court below without considering this material aspects
and blindly relied upon the objection statement of the 1st
respondent and also without giving any proper findings
rejected the application filed by the petitioner and
accordingly, the order passed by the court below is liable
to be set aside by the intervention of this court. Before
acquisition of land in question there was a building in
the said land and the same was fetching rent and the
same was used by this petitioner for his livelihood and
land in question was acquired by KIADB and awarded
compensation amount in favour of the petitioner by
deducting necessary income tax. Accordingly, no fraud
or illegal act committed by this petitioner as alleged by
the complainant. The complainant police cannot freeze
12 Crl.R.P.289/2018
the said bank account without compliance provisions
under section 102 of Cr.P.C., Unfortunately, the court
below without considering this material aspects and
blindly relied upon the objection statement of this first
respondent and also without giving any proper findings
rejected the application filed by the petitioner and
accordingly, the order passed by the court below is liable
to be set aside by the intervention of this court. After
freezing of bank belongs this petitioner, he and also his
family members are suffering for day today food and the
said amount is not required for investigation on the
other hand the same is required for his family needs and
requirements. Even otherwise the seizing of bank
account by the 2nd respondent and also the order passed
by the court below in rejecting application under Section
451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., is not maintainable either in law
or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in
limine. The criminal revision petition filed is in time and
fixed court fee is paid on the memorandum of Criminal
Revision Petition. So, it is prayed to allow the petition.
5. Heard the Advocate for petitioner and also learned
Public Prosecutor appeared for respondent, perused the
materials placed on record.
The learned counsel for revision petitioner during course
of his arguments has relied on following case laws in support
of the case of the revision petitioner i.e.,
13 Crl.R.P.289/2018
1. Crl.L.J.2003 294 between R.Chandrasekar
V/s.Inspector of Police, Salem and another wherein it is held
as under;
Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S.102
- Search and Seizure - Powers of
Police Officer - Respondent Police
Officer passing prohibitory order
preventing petitioner from operating
bank account - mere allegation of the
prosecution that property viz., the
Bank account is a sequel to the
discovery of commission of offence -
Is not sufficient to attract S.102 of
Cr.P.C., - Further, notice as
contemplated under S.102(3) was not
given to petitioner - Nor even the copy
of prohibitory order was served to
petitioner - Non compliance of
mandatory requirements of S. 102 -
Order of respondent police officer
liable to be revoked.
11. The respondents/police has
also not followed the mandatory
requirements of Section 102 of
Cr.P.C., The police officer shall
forthwith report the same to the
14 Crl.R.P.289/2018
Magistrate allow him to operate the
bank account subject to executing a
bond under taking to produce the
amount in Court, as and when
required as contemplate din Clause 3
of Section 102, but not given any
such notice. Even the copy of
prohibitory order was not served to
the petitioner.
2.Crl.L.J.2008 148 between Dr.Shashikant D. Karnik
V/s. State of Maharashtra wherein it is held as under;
(B) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974),
S.102- seizure of property by police -
Attachment of bank accounts-
Provisions of S.102 are to be complied
with before passing order - Police
officers have no power to pass ad
interim order or temporary order
stopping operation of accounts and
then issue final order of attachment
of account.
3. Crl.L.J.1999 4305 between State of Maharashtra V/s.
Tapas.D. Neogy wherein it is held as under;
Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S.102
- Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of
1988), S.13 - Power of Police to seize
15 Crl.R.P.289/2018
property - "Bank Account" of accused
or any of his relation is "property"
within meaning of S.102-Police
Officer in course of investigation can
seize or prohibit operation of said
"Bank account".
4. Crl.L.J.1991 2798 between M/s.Purbanchal Road
Service, Gauhati V/s. The State, Opposite Party wherein it is
held as under;
Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S.102
- Seizure - Powers of Police Officer -
Order by police officer directing bank
not to allow accused to withdraw
money or property from accounts and
lockers held by him - Not permissible.
Seizure - Powers of Police
Officer - He cannot pass order
prohibiting Bank not to pay amount
from their accounts and lockers.
Police officer - order prohibiting
Bank from paying amount to accused
from his accounts - Not permissible.
Banking - bank Lockers - order
by Police Officer prohibiting bank
from paying amount to accused from
his accounts - Not permissible.
6. The points arise for my consideration is as under:
16 Crl.R.P.289/2018
1) Whether the order passed by the
Court below requires any interference
by this Court?
2) What order?
7. My findings on the above points are as
under :
Point No.1 : In the Negative,
Point No.2 : As per final order,
for the following :
REASONS
8. Point No.1:- On perusal of the entire records of this
case it reveals that present revision petitioner is an
unsuccessful applicant/claimant before the court below in Cr.
No.270/2017 in which he filed an application under Section
451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., to defreeze the bank account i.e.,
Account no.843810310000793, State Bank of India, No.50,
18th main, 20th Cross, 3rd sector HSR Layout, Bangalore-102
dt.1.12.2017 belonging to this petitioner and being aggrieved
by order dt.24.3.2018 this revision petition filed by him in
view of the grounds set out in the main petition pertains to
challenging the validity of impugned order under the revision
under the facts and as well as under the law, inview of the
facts and circumstances stated therein, prayed to allow this
revision petition and to set aside said impugned order passed
by the court below calling for the records in the above said
crime number pending on the file of I ACMM Bangalore, of the
1st respondent and to defreeze the above said account and to
17 Crl.R.P.289/2018
grant such other relief's as deems fit and proper by this court
in order to met the ends of justice and equity.
9. On going through the grounds set out in the main
petition urged by the revision petitioner it reveals that being
aggrieved by the order under the revision passed by the court
below it is specific contention of the revision petitioner that
the order passed by the court below in respect of rejecting the
application filed under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., is
neither maintainable under the law nor on facts and the same
is liable to be set aside by intervention of this court. It is also
the specific contention of the petitioner that there was a
partition held between the petitioner and his father on
24.3.2005 now, complainant has filed a complaint by stating
that the document is void and created documents after lapse
of 12 years and the said document is registered partition deed
and on the basis of several proceedings where took place and
complainant filed suit in OS No.214/18 on the file of Prl. Sr.
C.J. Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in the month of
March 2018 and sought partition and separation possession
against the petitioner and other and the same is pending for
adjudication. Apart from the same one Prajwal Reddy and
another who claims to be son and daughter of deceased
Sudhanva Reddy and they have file done more suit in OS
No.714/17 on the file of Prl. Sr.C.J. Bangalore Rural District,
Bangalore and the same is also pending for adjudication. If
really the said documents if forged and created document y
this petitioner and others the competent Civil Court look over
18 Crl.R.P.289/2018
the same and to discard the validity of the said document and
not by the respondent police, since they have no power to
exercise civil Court Power. Therefore, considering all these
facts and circumstances trial court based on the objections
filed by the 1st respondent and blindly rejected the said
application and the said order is liable to be set aside.
Further, it is also the specific contention of the revision
petitioner that by admitting the fact that 1st respondent police
have empowered to seize the bank accounts of any person/s,
by using powers vested under Section 102 of Cr.P.C.,
unfortunately, complainant police have not followed any rules
and regulation of the said provision and also the guide lines
issued by various High Court and Apex Court while freezing
bank account belonging to the petitioner and in this regard
quoted the provision of 102 of Cr.P.C., at sub para No.1 to 3 .
It is also clear from the contention taken by the petitioner by
relying on the view taken in 1991 Cr.L.J. page 2798 in
respect of Section 102 of Cr.P.C., - Seizer - Power of Officer
and also No.2, 2003 Cr.L.J. page 294 in respect of provision
of the said section vide para No.16 and 17 of the main
petition on page No.11 and 12, by relying on the view taken in
the said case laws it is contended that complainant police
have not issued any notice to the petitioner regarding freeze of
the bank account belongs to the petitioner apart from the
same the 2nd respondent police have not intimated regarding
freezing of the bank account immediately and forthwith to the
concerned jurisdiction court accordingly the act of the 2nd
respondent is totally illegal and contrary the law and fact and
19 Crl.R.P.289/2018
also on the ground that concerned Metro Authority has not
released the compensation amount in favor of the petitioner
not only on the basis of the genealogy tree produced by them
as alleged by the complainant on the other hand the
compensation amount was release don the basis of the title
deed sand other relevant documents. Inview of these
circumstances, petitioner has not at all committed any fraud
on the complainant or metro authority and also the
compensation awarded to him by the concerned authority by
following the due process of law. Therefore, petitioner has
not committed any illegal act. Further, it is contended on the
ground that by seeing the entire complaint filed by the
complainant Kathyayini before the 1st respondent police has
not disclosed any commission of offence committed by this
petitioner, apart from the same this petitioner is not at all
accused in the said case, without any offence committed by
the petitioner how the 2nd respondent freeze his bank account
without giving any notice and also following rules and
regulations as contemplated under Section 120 (2) (3) of
Cr.P.C. it is also on the ground that before acquisition of the
land there was a building in the said land and the same was
fetching rent and same was used by the petitioner for his
livelihood and land in question was acquired by KIADB and
awarded compensation amount in favour of the petitioner by
deducting necessary income tax, accordingly no fraud or
illegal act committed by the petitioner and further on the
ground that due to freezing of the bank account belongs to
the petitioner he and his members are suffering for day today
20 Crl.R.P.289/2018
food and the said amount is not required for investigation, on
the other hand the same is required for his family needs and
requirements. Under these circumstances it is made to set
aside the order under revision passed by the court below
rejecting the application filed under Section 451 and 457 of
Cr.P.C., on the file of 1st ACMM Court Bangalore and prays to
defreeze the bank account of the petitioner as prayed under
Para No.25 (c) of the main petition by allowing this petition in
the interest of justice.
10. The petitioner in this case in support of their case
have produced the following documents;
1. Xerox copy of the sale deed dt.17.2.1986 with Xerox
copy of the E.C. in respect of the property as shown
in the said copy of the sale deed in form No.148 for
the period 20.4.85 to 31.5.2004
2. Xerox copy of the Register extract in respect of EC in
respect of form No.148
3. Xerox copy of the death certificate of
Smt.Jayalakshmamma containing her date of death
as 30.7.1997.
4. Copy of the partition deed dt.24.3.2004
5. Copy of the Registered Partition Deed.
6. Xerox copy of the NIL-E.C in form no.15.
7. Xerox copy of the death ceremony card of
K.G.Yellappa Reddy
8. Xerox copy of mutation pertains to M.R. No.H2/2014
- 2015
21 Crl.R.P.289/2018
9. Xerox copy of mutation pertains to M.R. No.67/2015-
- 2016
10. Three Xerox copies of the land bearing Sy. 35
pertains to the year 2016-17
11. Two Xerox copy of the Maps pertains to land and
properties bearing No.35 and 236 and Xerox copy of
the revision settlement akaar bandh.
12. Xerox copy of the release deed dt.3.4.2014.
13. Xerox copy of the E.C. in From No.5
14. Xerox copy of notification dt.6.9.2017 by KIDB,
Bangalore
15. Xerox copy of the letter dt.6.9.20017 addressed to
Prl City Civil Court Bangalore by KIADB
16. Xerox copy of the order of SLAO passed by KIADB
dt.5.9.2017
17. Xerox copy of the endorsement dt.6.9.17 by
KIADB
18. Xerox copy of the information furnished by SLAO
of AIDTRC under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition
Act.
19. Xerox copy of the FIR pertains No.270/14 of
Cubbon Park Dvn., pertains to Viveknagara P.S.
20. Copy of the complaint pertains to the said crime
Number.
21. Copy of the application filed under Section 451
and 457 of C.P.C., by the present revision petitioner
under court below under Section 451 and 457 of
Cr.P.C., dt.18.12.2007
22 Crl.R.P.289/2018
22. Xerox copy of the report of the jurisdictional CCB
Police
23. Xerox copy of the application filed under
Section456 1n and 457 of Cr.P.C. ,dt.2.3.2018, Xerox
copy of the order of seizer of properties by P.I. of
CCB, Bangalore.
24. Xerox copy of the order sheet of the court below in
Cr. No.270/17 which is also containing Certified copy
of the order dt.24.3.2018 in respect of rejecting the
application filed by the petitioner before the court
below under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C.,
11. Where as on the other hand respondent is a Central
Crime branch, Bangalore represented by respondent No.2
Commissioner Police, Infantry Road, Bangalore, respondent
No.1 and 2 are represented by the Public Prosecutor, has
argued with regard to the impugned order under the revision
preferred by the revision petitioner in respect of rejecting the
application filed by revision petitioner before the court below
under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C., by supporting the view
taken by the Court below not only with regard to factual and
legal aspects as far as the dispute between the revision
petitioner and complainant whose complaint registered by the
jurisdictional police and during the course of investigating the
matter referred to respondent No.2 by the jurisdictional police
for investigation of this case and further submitted that with
particularly with regard to the nature of the dispute between
the present petitioner and his family members, including the
23 Crl.R.P.289/2018
complainant and other sister's, who have already filed suit
before the competent Civil Court in OS No.714/2017 i.e.,
pending on the file of the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bangalore, for partition and separation possession and the
said suit is still pending for adjudication in respect of land
and property bearing Sy. No.35 to the extent of 1 acre 19
guntas situated at Dodda Thogaru Village, in respect of said
land and property acquired by KIADB and concerned land
acquisition officer has awarded compensation of Rs.33 Crores
and in respect of that the suit is still pending for adjudication
of the right of the parties of the said suit, to which the present
petitioner is also revision petitioner and also a party to the
said suit and by virtue of dispute between both the parties
including the applicant who appeared during the pendency of
this case by invoking the provision of Section 399 and 403 of
Cr.P.C., to implead them as a party to this case and also
seeking permission of this court to contest this matter as an
objectors an during the course of investigation of the case by
respondent No.2, who passed the order under Section 102 of
Cr.P.C., for freezing the respective bank accounts of the
parties including the present revision petitioner and therefore
under these circumstance it is further submitted by learned
Public Prosecutor that when parallel civil suit is pending
before jurisdictional Civil Court for the purpose of
adjudication of the right of the parties with regard to
quantum of their share pertains to the alleged land acquired
by the KIDB is concerned, parties are governed by the
decisions and adjudication of their respective rights in the
24 Crl.R.P.289/2018
said proceedings and unless and until right of the parties in
the said suit are determined petitioner is not entitled to claim
any share in respect of the compensation amount which is
under deposit for which respondent No.2 passed order under
Section 102 of Cr.P.C., which is at this stage is sustainable
and interference by this court is not necessary as the order
under the revision is proper legal and valid under the eye of
law and facts and therefore under these circumstances it is
submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that there are no
merits in the contention taken by the revision petitioner in
the main petition.
12. On going through the nature of the relief sought for
by the revision petitioner in the main petition from para
No.13 to 22 are taken into consideration with regard to the
grievance of the revision petitioner pertains to rejection of his
application filed before the court below under Section 451
and 457 of Cr.P.C., in Cr. No.270/17, on the file of 1st ACMM
Bangalore, dt.24.3.2018 is concerned and also the contention
taken by learned Public Prosecutor as referred above supra in
the light of report submitted by the respondent No.2 to this
court, it is clear that from the above circusmtnaces that there
is no dispute with regard to pendency of the proceedings in
OS No.214/18 pending on the file of Prl. Sr Civil Judge,
Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, which was filed by the
complainant and sought for partition and separate possession
of her legitimate share as against the present petitioner and
others is still pending before the said court and also it is
undisputed fact that before the said court also one more suit
25 Crl.R.P.289/2018
filed by one Prajwal Reddy and Another claims to be son and
daughter of the deceased Sudhanva Reddy, in OS No.714/17
is also pending for adjudication. Since there is no dispute by
the present petitioner not only with regard to the aspect that
he being a party to the above said two Civil suits as well as
with regard to the another material aspect that the said two
separate suits are still pending on the file of Prl. Sr. Civil
Judge, Bangalore Rural Court, Bangalore for the relief's as
referred above supra.
13. When such being the present situation with respect
to the pendency of the above said two civil matters in both
suits the above said land and property is the subject matter
of adjudication pertaining to the right of the parties to the
said suit on merits. But inspite of that it is the grievance of
the present revision petitioner by challenging the validity of
power of the respondent No.2 pertains to freezing of his bank
account as contemplated under Section 102(2) and (3) of
Cr.P.C. i.e., jurisdictional police have not complied proper
procedure for freezing his bank account since concerned
police officer said to be not issued prior notice to the
petitioner in respect of freezing his bank account and
therefore the said action of respondent No.2 is nothing but
depriving an opportunity to put forth his say pertains to
freezing of his said bank account by the jurisdictional police
and thereby such action is against the principles of natural
justice and in this context, learned counsel for revision
petitioner during course of his arguments relied on the
observation made in the case laws which are referred at para
26 Crl.R.P.289/2018
No.16 and 17 of the main petition and as well as other two
rulings at Sl. No.2 and 3 referred in memo dt.21.4.18 as
referred above supra, the views taken in the above case laws
relied by the learned counsel for revision petitioner in this
case in the light of present facts and circumstances of this
case it is crystal clear that the facts and circumstances of the
above case laws are quiet different from the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand and as well as there is no
dispute but the present petitioner with regard to the
pendency of the above said two separate civil suits before the
said court under such circumstances, as per the contention
taken by the petitioner before this court that police have no
power to exercise civil court power and as well as certain
documents which are in dispute between complainant and
present petitioner and other defendant's with regard to
forgery or creating a false document etc., by them, all these
allegations which are required to be dealt with and to be
decided by the competent Civil Court itself where the above
said two suits are pending. It is also pertinent to note that
filing of the complaint by the complainant before the
jurisdictional police appears to be subsequent to the filing of
the above said civil suits before the said court, having regard
to mention of the allegations made in the complaint as well as
certain materials which were produced by the complainant
before the jurisdictional police with regard to pendency of the
said suit, to which the present revision petitioner is a party to
the proceedings, it is not open to the revision petitioner to
take up the contention or make it as a ground with regard to
27 Crl.R.P.289/2018
the validity of the order passed by the court below and also
the competency of the jurisdictional police officer about
freezing of his bank account during course of investigation.
Therefore, under such circumstances having regard to these
material facts and situations it can be inferred that here are
no merits in the contention taken by the revision petitioner
with regard to this material aspect and therefore the
observation made in the above case laws do not attract to the
case of the revision petitioner and they are not helpful to the
petitioner in this case.
14. It is pertinent to note that during pendency of this
revision petitioner/applicant objectors No.1 Jaayashree and
also applicant objector No.2 smt.Kathyayaink who are also
the complainants have appeared through their counsel before
this court by moving an application under 399, 403 of
Cr.P.C., along with the copies of the documents with separate
memo dt.3.9.18 as per the particulars shown in copy of the
index enclosed along with this memo at Sl. No. 1 to 10 which
are pertains to suit in OC No.274/18 pending on the file of
Prl. Sr. Civil Judge Bangalore Rural District, Banglaore i.e.,
copy of the plaint, copy of the list of documents Sl. No.1 to 8,
Copy of the plaint in OS No.124/18, copy of the list of
documents, copy of T.I. Order in OS No.124/18 on I.A. No.1
dt.16.2.18, granting T.I. against defendant No.1 to 4, their
agents or claiming through them restraining them from
withdrawing or operating bank accounts mentioned in
Schedule item No.1 to 4 so as to misuse the award deposited
in defendant's No.5 to 7 banks till disposal of the suit. Apart
28 Crl.R.P.289/2018
from this, learned counsel for applicant/objector produced
one more Certified copy of the order sheet in OS
No.724/2018 and it reveals that on 2.6.18 T.I. order was
passed by the said court against the defendant's in the said
suit, the subject mater of the said suit is still pending before
the competent Civil Court, with regard to this separate
application filed by the applicant/objectors is contested by
present revision petitioner and as well as learned Public
Prosecutor, out of them learned counsel for petitioner filed
separate objections to this application and on going through
the entire facts and circumstances of this case this court
passed separate order with regard to this application with a
considered view that applicant/objectors have no locus standi
independency to come on record when their case is taken over
by the state represent by Public Prosecutor and also as per
the view taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in (2013) 10 SCC page
465 in Subramanyan Swami and Others V/s. Raju through
Member Juvenile Justice and Board
"The question arising in this
petition is : should the adjudication
sought for by the petitioner be refused
at the threshold on the basis of the
fairly well established legal proposition
that a third party/stranger does not
have any right to participate in a
criminal prosecution which is primarily
the function of the state?
29 Crl.R.P.289/2018
Allowing the petition, the
Supreme Court"
15. Having regard to the view taken in the above case
law with regard to the maintainability of the application of the
3rd party, is taken into consideration, this court is of view
that applicant/objectors have no locus-standi to maintain
such application independently but at the most they can seek
permission of the court to assist Public Prosecutor appearing
for respondent No.1 and 2 and therefore as per the separate
order passed on such application this court held that
applicant/objectors are not entitled to come on record as
applicant/objectors in proceedings of this case.
16. It is also pertinent to note that with regard to the
aspect submitted by the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner with regard to freezing of bank account of the
petitioner by the jurisdictional police in which his personal
money is lying the said bank account and due to freezer of
the bank account by the jurisdictional police in reality of
these harden days to goes very difficult for the petitioner to
maintain himself and his family members in a place like
Bangalore City and therefore it is further submitted that if
this court comes to a conclusion that the action taken by
respondent police for freezing of the bank account of the
petitioner is justifiable one then to order for respondent
concerned only to the extent of release of the personal money
of the respondent from the bank account of the petitioner,
30 Crl.R.P.289/2018
with regard to this aspect also it is pertinent to note that
there is no specific prayer either made before the court below
before passing the order under the revision on his application
filed under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C., or before this court
put forth specific pleading sand cogent proof as to which are
his personal money lying in his bank account. Therefore, in
the absence of such prayer and proof by the revision
petitioner, merely on the ground of amount which is lying in
the bank account of the revision petitioner, which is personal
or which came to him through the competent authority
pertains to compensation awarded by land acquisition
authority in respect of the said land and property are
concerned all these meticulous facts and circumstances
which are required to be put forth and to be determined by
the competent civil court itself in the sad proceedings and
therefore this court having limits jurisdiction only to examine
the validity of the order under the revision passed by the
court below with regard to rejecting the application of the
petitioner filed under Section 451, 457 of Cr.P.C., this court
cannot dealt with the matter which is already competent Civil
Court has taken cognizance. Therefore under circumstances
from the entire facts and circumstances of this case and as
well as the observation made above supra it is clear that
though there may not be any dispute between the
relationship between the parties, it is for the revision
petitioner to get redressal of his grievance before competent
Civil Court, even though separate criminal proceeding initiate
by one of the member of the joint family. Hence, it can be
31 Crl.R.P.289/2018
inferred that when effective remedy is available to the revision
petitioner to get suitable order pertains to withdraw the
amount from bank account is concerned, he can approach
above said competent Civil Court and he can get suitable
orders as per the Law. Therefore, Considering all the
circumstances this court of the considered view that there are
no merits in the ground urged in the main petition filed by
the petitioner because on going through the impugned order
under the revision passing by the court below in this light of
above documents produced by Revision Petitioner from entire
para No. 13 from end page No.122 to 125 Certified copy of
the order of the court below it is crystal clear that the
observation made by the court below does not suffer from any
illegality and thereby it is clear that the revision petitioner
has failed to establish that the order under the revision
passed by the court below is contrary to law and procedure
and interference by this court is necessary. Accordingly, this
point is answered in the Negative.
17. POINT NO.2: In view of my findings to point No.1
in Negative, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
The Revision Petition filed by the petitioner U/s.397/399 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
The order passed by the Court below in cr. No.270/17 in respect of the application filed under 32 Crl.R.P.289/2018 Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., dt.24.3.2018 is hereby confirmed.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, this the 3rd day of December, 2018).
(S.A.CHIKKORDE) LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
33 Crl.R.P.289/2018 The Revision Petition filed by the petitioner U/s.397/399 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
The order passed by the Court below in cr. No.270/17 in respect of the application filed under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., dt.24.3.2018 is hereby confirmed.
LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.