Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt. Thota Padmavathi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 April, 2023
Author: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2575 OF 2023
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'CrPC'), is filed seeking anticipatory bail to enlarge the petitioners/ A.1 and A.2 on bail in the event of her arrest in crime No.8 of 2023 of Pattabhipuram police station, Guntur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 120B IPC.
2. Basing on a report lodged by one K.Kiran, police registered the aforesaid crime. The allegations, in brief, are as follows.
The informant went to USA in 2002 and became an US citizen. Presently, he is working as a Business Development Executive in Agility Software Solutions, California. He owns a two storey house with D.No.2- 14-140/1, 1st Line, Syamala Nagar, Guntur. His mother gifted the same to him on 28.10.2003 under a registered 2 gift deed. He leased out the house property to Tracks and Towers Infratech Private Limited, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad from November, 2014 till 31.01.2020 for use as an office space, and the rent was being deposited directly into his personal bank account with Indian Overseas Bank.
Elder brother of the informant K.Anil Kumar (A.3) does not have a job and he is addicted to bad friendships. At his request, the informant allowed him to continue in ground floor of the house from February, 2020. The informant also allowed his younger sister to live in upstairs of the house from February, 2020. It is only with an intention to safeguard the property as he is residing in USA.
The informant came to India on 01.12.2022 after 7 ½ years. He came to know that the Authorized Officer of Union Bank of India (erstwhile Andhra Bank) served a notice dated 13.12.2022 demanding to repay Rs.10,92,86,652.68 and informed that the Bank took possession of the subject house with site. 3
From the notice, it is clear that A.2 and his mother (A.1) along with brother of the informant K.Anil Kumar (A.3) conspired to snatch away the subject property and created fake and forged documents in furtherance of their conspiracy whereby his brother fabricated a fake Aadhar card which bears name of the informant, his Guntur address and also contains his photo. By using the fake and forged Aadhar, his brother fraudulently registered the above property of 541 square yards with G+2 house in the name of A.1 and A.2 on 19.12.2020, and both A.1 and A.2 knew pretty well that the said property does not belong to brother of the informant (A.3). His brother (A.3) impersonated the informant in executing the sale deed and officials concerned in the office of the Sub Registrar, Nallapadu fraudulently registered the sale deed on 19.12.2020 though there is glaring difference visible to naked eye in photos affixed to his gift deed and the fake sale deed dated 19.12.2020 with false contents. His brother forged his signature on all pages of registered sale deed besides putting his 4 signature and affixing thumb impression on concerned papers and official records of the registering authority, and A.1 and A.2 abetted his brother to do the act. They knocked away his property by quoting house property as Rs.4.00 crores only and illegally enriched themselves.
A reading of the registered sale deed dated 19.12.2020 goes to show that huge amount of Rs.3.70 crores was paid to his brother Anil Kumar (A.3) while Rs.30.00 lakhs was credited into his brother's fake bank account in Yes Bank Limited, Laxmipuram main road, Guntur, which might have been fraudulently created by his brother using fake and forged identity records in the name of informant.
By mortgaging forged registered sale deed, A.1, who is sole Proprietor of M/s Lalitha Cotton Traders, and A.2 obtained a loan of Rs.8.00 Crores from Union Bank of India, as borrower and guarantor respectively. The officials of the Bank also conspired with the above persons in accepting the fake property without enquiring about the genuineness of the mortgaged property and 5 the glaring difference in photos affixed to his gift deed and the forged sale deed. Hence, the report.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that all the allegations are directed against A.3, and insofar as petitioners are concerned, they alleged to have purchased the subject house property viz. two storey house with D.No.2-14-140/1, 1st Line, Syamala Nagar, Guntur, from A.3 for a sale consideration of Rs.3.70 crores while an amount of Rs.30.00 lakhs was credited into the account of A.3. He submits that except the said accusation, there is no other material to connect the petitioners to the subject crime.
4. On the other hand, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners contending that a perusal of the material on record goes to show that the petitioners and A.3 conspired together to snatch away the subject house property belonging to the defacto complainant, by 6 creating fake and forged document in execution of their conspiracy, and the investigation is at nascent stage.
5. Heard and perused the record.
6. The defacto complainant is a resident of United States of America (USA). He went to USA in the year 2002 and became an US citizen. He is working as a Business Development Executive in Agility Software Solutions, California. He is brother of A.3. He owns a two storey house with D.No.2-14-140/1, 1st Line, Syamala Nagar, Guntur, which was gifted to him by his mother on 28.10.2003 under a registered gift deed. He leased out the house property to Tracks and Towers Infratech Private Limited, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad from November, 2014 till 31.01.2020 for use as an office space, and the rent was being deposited directly into his personal bank account with Indian Overseas Bank, Nallapadu, Guntur.
Elder brother of the defacto complainant K.Anil Kumar, who is A.3, does not have a job and is addicted 7 to bad friendships. On the request made by A.3, the defacto complainant allowed him to continue in ground floor of the house from February, 2020 after Tracks and Towers Infratech Private Limited vacated the house. Similarly, he allowed his younger sister to live in upstairs of the house from February, 2020. The defacto complainant visited India on 01.12.2022, after 7 ½ years from his last visit in August, 2015. He came to know that the Authorized Officer of Union Bank of India (erstwhile Andhra Bank) served a notice dated 13.12.2022 demanding to repay Rs.10,92,86,652.68 and informed that the Bank took possession of the subject house with site. A reading of the aforesaid papers, it goes to show that both the petitioners conspired to snatch away the subject house property and created fake and forged document in execution of their conspiracy along with A.3. In furtherance of the conspiracy, A.3 fabricated a fake Aadhar card which bears name of the defacto complainant, his Guntur address and contains A.3's photo, and by using the said fake and forged 8 Aadhar card, A.3 fraudulently registered the aforesaid property of 541 square yards with G+2 house in the name of the petitioners on 19.12.2020 itself. It is alleged that both the petitioners, knew pretty well that the said property does not belong to A.3. A.3 impersonated the informant and executed the sale deed and officials concerned in the office of the Sub Registrar, Nallapadu fraudulently registered the sale deed on 19.12.2020 though there is glaring difference visible to naked eye in photos affixed to his gift deed and the fake sale deed dated 19.12.2020 with false contents. A.3 forged his signature on all pages of registered sale deed besides putting his signature and affixing thumb impression on concerned papers and official records of the registering authority, and A.1 and A.2 abetted his brother to do the act. They knocked away his property by quoting house property as Rs.4.00 crores only and illegally enriched themselves.
9
7. It is pertinent to mention here that a reading of the registered sale deed dated 19.12.2020 shows that huge amount of Rs.3.70 crores was already paid to A.3 while Rs.30.00 lakhs was credited to the fake bank account of A.3 in Yes Bank Limited, Laxmipuram main road, Guntur, and it is alleged that the said account was fraudulently created by A.3 using fake and forged identity records. During the course of investigation, police came to the conclusion that the said amount of Rs.30.00 lakhs which has been credited to the account of A.3, is a fake transaction, and it appears that no such transaction had taken place. It can be safely inferred that the entire transaction that had taken place between the petitioners and A.3 is a transaction where cash had been paid. By virtue of same, the said transaction that had taken place appears to be iniquitous.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the accusation that has been made as against A.3 would squarely fall within the purview of 10 Sections 34, 35 and 36 of the Aadhar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (for short, 'the Act, 2016'). Relying upon the same, the learned counsel for the petitioners also draws attention of the Court by submitting that Section 47 of the said Act, 2016 contemplates taking cognizance of the offences, and offences alleged in the subject FIR would not attract as against A.3, and if at all any offence is alleged against him, it can be under Sections 34 to 36 of the Act, 2016, and the police would not in any way investigate into the said offences.
9. Sections 34, 35 and 36 of the Act, 2016 read thus:
"34. Penalty for impersonation at time of enrolment:- Whoever impersonates or attempts to impersonate another person, whether dead or alive, real or imaginary, by providing any false demographic information or biometric information, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with a fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both.
35. Penalty for impersonation of Aadhar number holder by changing demographic information or biometric information:- Whoever, with the intention of causing harm or mischief to an Aadhaar number holder, or with the intention of appropriating the 11 identity of an Aadhaar number holder changes or attempts to change any demographic information or biometric information of an Aadhaar number holder by impersonating or attempting to impersonate another person, dead or alive, real or imaginary, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to a fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.
36. Penalty for impersonation:- Whoever, not being authorised to collect identity information under the provisions of this Act, by words, conduct or demeanour pretends that he is authorised to do so, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with a fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or, in the case of a company, with a fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or with both."
This Court, on a perusal of the said provisions, is of the opinion primarily that A.3 is not before this Court. The case on hand pertains to the fact that A.3, claiming himself to be the defacto complainant, impersonated and obtained Aadhar card by disclosing fake identity information. It is pertinent to mention here that the defacto complainant did not obtain any Aadhar card since he is a citizen of USA. The very accusation as against A.3 is that he claimed himself to be the defacto 12 complainant and obtained the said fake Aadhar card with a mala fide intention.
10. The Act, 2016 has been brought into existence with a good intention of efficient, transparent and targeted delivery of subsidies, benefits and services, as a part of good governance, to the individuals residing in India through assigning of unique identity numbers to such individuals. The allegation against A.3 is that he claimed himself to be defacto complainant, obtained fake Aadhar card fraudulently with a mala fide intention. In the case on hand, the allegation against A.3 is that he has not only impersonated the defacto complainant in obtaining a fake Aadhar card, but also made use of it in executing the registered sale deed in favour of petitioners/A.1 and A.2. Police are investigating into the case and the same is at nascent stage. It is for the investigating agency to decide during the course of investigation whether the alleged offences would attract as against A.3 or not. Apart from the same, since A.3 is not before this Court, 13 this Court is not inclined to go into those aspects further.
11. The allegation as against the petitioners herein is that they conspired with A.3 and purchased the subject house from A.3 knowing pretty well that the said house does not belong to A.3, and after purchase, they mortgaged the said property along with other properties, to Union Bank of India and obtained loan of Rs.8.00 crores. On a perusal of the transaction that had taken place, an amount of Rs.3.70 Crores is alleged to have been transferred to the account of A.3. It appears that A.2 is in hand-in-glove with A.3 and they conspired together and brought into existence the fake Aadhar card as pertaining to the defacto complainant. Certain transactions had taken place between petitioner No.2/ A.2 and A.3. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner No.2/A.2.
14
12. As far as petitioner No.1/A.1 is concerned, she is a lady and mother of A.2, and being Proprietor of M/s.Lalitha Cotton Traders, except mortgaging the subject property purchased from A.3 and obtaining loan from the Bank, there seems to be not much role played by her. Being a lady, she would not be a part of creating fake and forged Aadhar card in the name of A.3. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner No.1/A.1.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed. In the event of her arrest in the aforesaid crime, the petitioner No.1/A.1 shall be released on bail on her executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officials. The petitioner No.1/A.1 shall attend before the investigating agency concerned once in a week i.e. on every Friday between 10.00 AM and 1.00 PM, till filing of 15 the charge sheet. The petitioner No.1/A.1 shall co- operate with the investigation.
The petitioner No.1/A.1 shall not directly or indirectly make any threat, inducement or promise to any of the witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to police officer, and she shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 25.04.2023.
DRK 16 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2575 OF 2023 25.04.2023 DRK