Bangalore District Court
Sri Kalaiah vs Smt Mangalagowramma on 13 March, 2020
IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE AT: BANGALORE
Dated this the 13th day of March 2020
:PRESENT:
Smt. Shirin J Ansari , B.A.LLB (Hons)., LL.M.
V ACMM Bangalore .
CRIMINAL CASE No.27872/2015
Complainant : Sri Kalaiah
S/of Devaiah
aged about 48 years,
R/of No.934, 3rd cross
6th main road,Kamalanagar
Bangalore 79.
(Rep by DKK - Advocate)
-VS-
Accused : 1.Smt Mangalagowramma
W/of Venkatesh
Major
2.Venkatesh
Major
Both are R/at in a portion at No.934,
3rd cross
6th main road,
Kamalanagar
Bangalore 79.
(Rep by BRP - Advocate)
1. Date of commencement of 21.4.2014
offence
2. Date of report of offence 21.4.2014
2 CC.No.27872/2015
3 Arrest of the accused The accused No.1 is on bail
Acc No.2 reported Dead.
4. Name of the complainant Kalaiah
5. Date of recording of 23.11.2015
evidence
Date of closing of evidence 14.05.2019
6.
7. Offences complained of Secs. 420, 423, 467, 468, 475,
474,504 & 506 of IPC.
8. Opinion of the Judge The accused No.1 is found not
guilty
9. Complainant by Sri DKK - Advocate.
10. Accused defence by Sri BRP , Advocate,
JUDGMENT
The complainant filed the present complaint against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sec.420, 423, 467, 468, 475, 474, 504 & 506 IPC .
2. The brief fact of the complainant The complainant is doing avocation of vegetable and flower vending . The entire family is dependent on him. Accused NO.1 is the wife of accused No.2. Accused No.1 and 2 are residing as tenants in one portion of the property belonging to the complainant. That the complainant is the absolute owner in possession of the property bearing site no.934 formed out of Sy 3 CC.No.27872/2015 No.45 measuring 39 ft east west , 20 ft north to south situated at 3rd cross, 6th main road, Kamalanagar, Bangalore. This schedule property is alloted to the complainant by the Tahasildhar , Bangalore north taluk under Ashraya scheme during 1992 and accordingly the complainant obtained Hakku Patra dt. 21.5.1992 .
3. The complainant is in possession of the disputed property from the date of allotment and the khata is changed in the name of the complainant .The complainant is also paying the tax regularly and constructed 6 small sheds in the property out of his own money and by raising loan from relatives and friends. The complainant is residing in a portion of said property with the family and he has also obtained Ration card of the address of said property.
4. Further, the complainant had let out one portion of said property on monthly rent of Rs.250/- to the accused persons in September, 2005. Thereafter, the accused persons were paying rent upto January, 2006. But, further postponed payment of rent. That during June, 2006 the complainant requested the accused to pay the rent, but, accused gave evasive answer and proclaimed the 4 CC.No.27872/2015 she will not pay the rent and she had become the absolute owner of the property.
5. Thereafter, the complainant enquired wherein he came to know that the accused had got registered the documents in her favour as owner pertaining to the said property. Immediately the complainant with the help of friends and well wishers applied for documents before the Sub Registrar Office, Bangalore north, and came to know that the accused in collusion with her husband accused NO.2 Venkatesh had concocted the gift deed dt. 20.1.2006 as if executed by the complainant . The accused No.1 is not the wife of the complainant and accused No.1 is in fact the wife of accused No2 and one Smt. Lakshmamma is the wife of the complainant.
6. Further, the complainant submits that during 2005, when the complainant had gone to his native place in Kunigal Taluk , Tumkur District both the accused persons pre planned and took away the original hakku patra and related documents from the house of the complainant and both the accused persons created the documents of gift deed in favour of her husband I.e accused NO.2 claiming to be Kalaiah and accused NO.2 stated that his name is Kalaiah and he is the husband of 5 CC.No.27872/2015 Mangalagowramma Accused No.2 affixed LTM mark and wrote name as Kalaiah instead of Venkatesh and executed gift deed dt. 20.1.2006 which was registered before the Sub Registrar, Bangalore north taluk, Bangalore in book No.1, No.BLN-1- 18915/2005-06 in CD No.BLND -205.
7. The complainant further submits that he immediately gave complaint against the accused persons before Basaveshwar Nagar police station dt.19.11.2006 stating that the accused persons forcibly entered the house of the complainant and taken the originals of Hakku patra and other documents and finally both the accused concocted the documents as gift deed and got registered the same before the Sub Registrar, Bangalore . Accused No.2 stated himself as Kalaiah instead of Venkatesh and forged the signature of Kalaiah by afixing the LTM mark in the gift deed and both the accused persons have cheated the complainant . But the police have not taken any action against the accused persons. Thereafter on 15.11.2006 , the complainant again gave complaint to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vijaynagar Division, Bangalore.
8. The complainant further submits that on 14.2.2007 the accused persons came near the disputed property with third 6 CC.No.27872/2015 party and tried to interfere with possession of the complainant over the property and threatened the complainant not to enter the suit property as she is the absolute owner. The accused once again on 14.7.2007 brought some third parties near the schedule property and the 3rd party were accompanied by the local goondas and made to interfere into the schedule property and the accused told that she will sell the property to them. The complainant with great difficulty resisted their illegal activities with the neighbors and others. Immediately the complainant approached the jurisdictional police for help, but, the police without giving any protection directed the complainant to approach the court as the matter was civil in nature. Having no other way, the complainant was constrained to approach the Civil court on 17.8.2007 with suit for declaration and injunction in OS No. 26479/2007 before the 4th Addl.City Civil & Sessions court, Mayo Hall, Bangalore .
9. The complainant further submits that on 6.3.2012 finally the court decreed the said suit by declaring the Gift deed dt.20.1.2006 as null and void and not binding on the complainant. That the complainant further submits that after the judgment and the decree, the accused persons are suppose to hand over the vacant possession of the premises, but, they refused to do so. But 7 CC.No.27872/2015 in fact absued the complainant in abusive language and insulted him. The accused intentionally neglected the judgment of the civil court and denied to hand over the possession of the schedule property. Further, the complainant submits that immediately he approached the jurisdictional police station, ie Basaveshwar Nagar police station for help. But the police did not help the complainant . The complainant made several attempt for some more days and believed that the police will take action against the accused persons. But the police did not take any action. Hence the complainant approached this court with the present private complaint. That the complainant further submits that the accused persons have thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec.420 , 423, 465, 467, 468, 475, 474, 504 & 506 IPC . Therefore, prays before the court to take cognizance of the offence and to punish the accused.
10. Criminal law was set in motion by complainant by filing private complaint before this court and on the basis of the same, criminal case was registered against the accused in PCR.No.8047/2014 and FIR was registered for the above said offences.
8 CC.No.27872/2015
11. Accused No.1 is on bail. Pursuant to summons, the accused appeared before the court through their counsel and the prosecution papers were supplied to the accused as contemplated U/s 207 of Cr.P.C. Charge were framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined the complainant as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P11. In view of her hostility, the learned Sr.APP submitted to close their side of evidences. The incriminating evidences appearing against the accused person is explained to the accused. The accused denied the same, but, did not choose to lead defence evidence.
12. The Learned counsel for the complainant has filed the written arguments.
Heard Sr. APP and the counsel for accused, perused the evidence and documents on record.
13. Now, the points that would arise for the consideration of this court are as follows:
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 and 2 being the tenants of the complainant on rent of Rs.250/-pm in one portion of the property belonging to the complainant who 9 CC.No.27872/2015 is the absolute owner in possession of the property bearing site no.934 formed out of Sy No.45 measuring 39 ft east west , 20 ft north to south situated at 3rd cross, 6th main road, Kamalanagar, Bangalore alloted to the complainant by the Tahasildhar , Bangalore north taluk under Ashraya scheme during 1992 and accordingly the complainant obtained Hakku Patra and later the accused with dishonest intention got registered the documents in her favour as owner pertaining to the said property and cheated the complainant and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec 420 of IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had concocted the gift deed dt. 20.1.2006 as if executed by the complainant in her favour and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec.423 of IPC?
3) Whether the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused forged the the gift deed dt. 20.1.2006 as if the same had been executed by the complainant in order transfer the valuable security and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec. 467 of IPC?
4) Whether the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused forged the the gift deed dt. 20.1.2006 and the other documents pertaining to the property of the complainant for the purpose of cheating and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec.468 of IPC ?
10 CC.No.27872/2015
5) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that during 2005, when the complainant had gone to his native place in Kunigal Taluk , Tumkur District both the accused persons pre planned and took away the original hakku patra and related documents from the house of the complainant and both the accused persons created the documents of gift deed in favour of her husband I.e accused NO.2 claiming to be Kalaiah and accused NO.2 stated that his name is Kalaiah and he is the husband of Mangalagowramma and Accused No.2 affixed LTM mark and wrote name as Kalaiah instead of Venkatesh and executed gift deed dt. 20.1.2006 which was registered before the Sub Registrar, Bangalore north taluk, Bangalore in book No.1, No.BLN-1-18915/2005-06 in CD No.BLND -205 and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec.475 & 474 of IPC.
6) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused not only cheated the complainant but also abused the complainant in filthy language and also threated the complainant threatened the complainant not to enter the suit property as she is the absolute owner and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec.504 and 506 of IPC?
7) What order?
My findings to the above points are as under:
Point No-1 - 6 : In the "Negative"
Point No-7 : As per final order
11 CC.No.27872/2015
for the following:
REASONS
14.Points No-1-6: It is the allegation of the complainant
that the complainant is doing avocation of vegetable and flower vending . The entire family is dependent on him. Accused NO.1 is the wife of accused No.2. Accused No.1 and 2 are residing as tenants in one portion of the property belonging to the complainant. That the complainant is the absolute owner in possession of the property bearing site no.934 formed out of Sy No.45 measuring 39 ft east west , 20 ft north to south situated at 3rd cross, 6th main road, Kamalanagar, Bangalore. This schedule property is alloted to the complainant by the Tahasildhar , Bangalore north taluk under Ashraya scheme during 1992 and accordingly the complainant obtained Hakku Patra dt. 21.5.1992 .
15. The complainant is in possession of the disputed property from the date of allotment and the khata is changed in the name of the complainant .The complainant is also paying the tax regularly and constructed 6 small sheds in the property out of his own money and by raising loan from relatives and friends. The complainant is residing in a portion of said property with the 12 CC.No.27872/2015 family and he has also obtained Ration card of the address of said property.
16. Further, the complainant had let out one portion of said property on monthly rent of Rs.250/- to the accused persons in September, 2005. Thereafter, the accused persons were paying rent upto January, 2006. But, further postponed payment of rent. That during June, 2006 the complainant requested the accused to pay the rent, but, accused gave evasive answer and proclaimed the she will not pay the rent and she had become the absolute owner of the property.
17. Thereafter, the complainant enquired wherein he came to know that the accused had got registered the documents in her favour as owner pertaining to the said property. Immediately the complainant with the help of friends and well wishers applied for documents before the Sub Registrar Office, Bangalore north, and came to know that the accused in collusion with her husband accused NO.2 Venkatesh had concocted the gift deed dt. 20.1.2006 as if executed by the complainant . The accused No.1 is not the wife of the complainant and accused No.1 is in fact the wife of accused No2 and one Smt. Lakshmamma is the wife of the complainant.
13 CC.No.27872/2015
18. Further, the complainant submits that during 2005, when the complainant had gone to his native place in Kunigal Taluk , Tumkur District both the accused persons pre planned and took away the original hakku patra and related documents from the house of the complainant and both the accused persons created the documents of gift deed in favour of her husband I.e accused NO.2 claiming to be Kalaiah and accused NO.2 stated that his name is Kalaiah and he is the husband of Mangalagowramma Accused No.2 affixed LTM mark and wrote name as Kalaiah instead of Venkatesh and executed gift deed dt. 20.1.2006 which was registered before the Sub Registrar, Bangalore north taluk, Bangalore in book No.1, No.BLN-1- 18915/2005-06 in CD No.BLND -205.
19. The complainant further submits that he immediately gave complaint against the accused persons before Basaveshwar Nagar police station dt.19.11.2006 stating that the accused persons forcibly entered the house of the complainant and taken the originals of Hakku patra and other documents and finally both the accused concocted the documents as gift deed and got registered the same before the Sub Registrar, Bangalore . Accused No.2 stated himself as Kalaiah instead of Venkatesh and forged the 14 CC.No.27872/2015 signature of Kalaiah by afixing the LTM mark in the gift deed and both the accused persons have cheated the complainant . But the police have not taken any action against the accused persons. Thereafter on 15.11.2006 , the complainant again gave complaint to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vijaynagar Division, Bangalore.
20. The complainant further submits that on 14.2.2007 the accused persons came near the disputed property with third party and tried to interfere with possession of the complainant over the property and threatened the complainant not to enter the suit property as she is the absolute owner. The accused once again on 14.7.2007 brought some third parties near the schedule property and the 3rd party were accompanied by the local goondas and made to interfere into the schedule property and the accused told that she will sell the property to them. The complainant with great difficulty resisted their illegal activities with the neighbors and others. Immediately the complainant approached the jurisdictional police for help, but, the police without giving any protection directed the complainant to approach the court as the matter was civil in nature. Having no other way, the complainant was constrained to approach the Civil court on 17.8.2007 with suit 15 CC.No.27872/2015 for declaration and injunction in OS No. 26479/2007 before the 4th Addl.City Civil & Sessions court, Mayo Hall, Bangalore .
21. The complainant further submits that on 6.3.2012 finally the court decreed the said suit by declaring the Gift deed dt.20.1.2006 as null and void and not binding on the complainant. That the complainant further submits that after obtaining the judgment and the decree, the accused persons are suppose to hand over the vacant possession of the premises, but, they refused to do so. But in fact scolded the complainant in abusive language and insulted him. The accused intentionally neglected the judgment of the civil court and denied to hand over the possession of the schedule property. Further, the complainant submits that immediately he approached the jurisdictional police station, ie Basaveshwar Nagar police station for help. But the police did not help the complainant . The complainant made several attempt for some more days and believed that the police will take action against the accused persons. But the police did not take any action. Hence the complainant approached this court with the present private complaint. That the complainant further submits that the accused persons have thereby committed the offence 16 CC.No.27872/2015 punishable under Sec.420 , 423, 465, 467, 468, 475, 474, 504 & 506 IPC .
22. In order to prove the case, the complainant is examined PW1 and lead sworn statement which later got converted in to examination-in-chief. During the course of cross-examination the complainant has clearly admitted before the court that he has not produced any agreement of rent or lease agreement to show that he had given the said premises on rent to the accused persons
23. On perusal of the examination-in-chief of PW1 it is found that the complainant has produced Ex.P.1 to P.11 P1 is the certified copy of the Hakku patra, Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of the tax paid receipts. Ex.P.3 and 4 are the certified copy khata extract and the khata certificate. Ex.P.5 is the certified copy of the ration card. Ex.P.6 is the certified copy of the gift deed Ex.P.7 is the certified copy of the police complaint. dt. 9.11.2006 . Ex.P.8 is the certified copy of the endorsed copy of the complaint to the A.C.P, Ex.P.9 is the certified copy of the judgment and decree of Hon'ble Civil Court. Ex.P.10 is the endorsed copy of the complaint dt.15.03.14 Ex.P.11 is the endorsed copy of the complaint made to the complaint Police dt 26.3.2014.
17 CC.No.27872/2015
24. On further perusal of the material on record it is found that the complainant has not produced any original copies of the documents. During the course of cross-examination, the complainant admits that the original copy of the Hakku patra is lost but he has not lodged any complaint for having lost the original document . The complainant has not paid the tax of the current year pertaining to the said property .
25. It is further admitted by PW 1 that the electricity bill of the said property is not standing in the name of the complainant. This aspect of the matter clearly go to show that the complainant has not approached the court with clean hands. At one stretch the complainant submits that original document ie Hakku Patra has been lost and not lodged any complaint to that effect. Though the complainant alleges that the gift deed is forged by accused persons but no substantial evidence of material is produced before the court by the complainant to prove the forgery.
Complainant has alleged that the accused have committed the offence punishable under Sec 504 and 506 of IPC. But no any specific date , time and place has been mentioned by the 18 CC.No.27872/2015 complainant as to when and where the accused persons abused and threatened the complainant with dire consequences of life .
26. Absolutely, the facts mentioned in the complaint are civil in nature for which the complainant had approached the civil court. Already the Hon'ble civil court has passed judgment to that effect holding that the complainant is the absolute owner of the schedule property and also declared that the gift deed dt. 20.1.2006 is null and void and not binding on the complainant . But for the only reason that the civil court has declared that the alleged gift deed is null and void it does not mean that the accused persons have forged the said document. In this present complaint, the complainant has not brought any satisfactory material to show that the accused persons and have forged the signature of the complainant in order to get the sale deed registered .
27. It is suggested to the PW1 during his cross-examination that the husband of the accused No.1 ie accused NO.2 is also known as Kalaiah for which the complainant has answered that he does not know about this. This aspect of the matter itself goes to show that the complainant does not know that the accused No2 19 CC.No.27872/2015 is also known as Kalaiah. Therefore under these circumstances of the case, the court is of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations made against the accused persons in the complaint. Moreover, the complainant has also not examined any other independent witnesses in support of his case. None of the official witnesses before whom the alleged gift deed is registered have been examined before the court. Therefore, under these circumstances, the court is of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove and make out the grounds to proceed to record the conviction against the accused persons . There is no satisfactory, convincing and absolute evidence on record against the accused persons. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt . Therefore, by extending the benefit of doubt to the accused, I answer point Nos.1 to 6 in the "Negative".
28. Point No-7: In view of the findings on above points, the accused No.1 is liable to be acquitted from the charges leveled against the accused . Hence I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER 20 CC.No.27872/2015 Acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the Accused No.1 is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 423, 467, 468, 475, 474 , 504 & 506 of IPC.
The bail bond and surety bond shall
stands cancelled.
Accused No.1 shall execute personal
bond of Rs.10,000/- towards compliance of section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.
The case against accused No.2 stands
abated .
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her and corrected by me, then pronounced in the open court, on this 13 th day of March 2020 ).
(SHIRIN J ANSARI) V ACMM, Bangalore ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined by the prosecution.
P.W.1 - Kalaiah
2. List of the documents exhibited for the prosecution .
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of the Hakku patra
Ex.P.2 Certified copy of the Tax paid receipts
Ex.P.3 Certified copy of the Khatha Extract
Ex.P.4 Certified copy of the khata certificate
Ex.P.5 Certified copy of the Ration Card
Ex.P.6 Certified copy of the Gift Deed
Ex.P.7 Endorsed copy of the police
complaint date. 9.11.2006
21 CC.No.27872/2015
Ex.P.8 Endorsed copy of the complaint to
the ACP date.15.11.2006
Ex.P.9 Certified copy of the judgment and
decree
Ex.P.10 Endorsed copy of the police complaint
date. 15.3.2014
Ex.P.11 Endorsed copy of the complaint to
the Commissioner of Police
date.26.03.2014 .
3. List of the witnesses examined for defence.
-NIL-
4. List of the Documents exhibited for defence.
-NIL-
5. List of the MOs marked in the evidence.
-NIL-
(SHIRIN J ANSARI) V ACMM, Bangalore.
22 CC.No.27872/2015