Allowed

Smt M Prabhavathi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2022CRL.P/2954/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed an anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with offences of cheating and forgery. The Court held that the allegations involve a civil dispute and directed the petitioners to cooperate with the investigation subject to bond and attendance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail in the event of arrest subject to executing a bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with sureties, cooperating with investigation, and appearing before the Investigating Officer monthly.

Smt M Prabhavathi Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2954/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. M. PRABHAVATHI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, W/O V. KODANDARAMA NAIDU.

¶9

SRI V. KODANDARAMA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O LATE V. VENKATARAMA NAIDU.

¶10

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.47, 19^TH CROSS, 29^TH MAIN ROAD, BTM 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560076. ...PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI GAJENDRA NAIDU E.R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HSR LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BANGALORE-560087. REP. BY HCGP, HIGH COURT, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. ...RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI H.S. SHANKAR, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN

¶16

¶17

THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.46/2022 REGISTERED BY H.S.R. LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 417, 419, 420, 468, 471 READ WITH 34 OF IPC.

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in respect of Crime No.46/2022 registered by HSR Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 419, 420, 468, 471 read with 34 of IPC.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

¶22

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant Smt. V.Bharathi had purchased the property from one Shankar Reddy in site No.724/2021, khatha No.151 and present BBMP Municipal No.151/724/21, through sale deed dated 20.05.1991. The complainant gifted the property in favour of her husband on 27.04.2019. The allegation against these petitioners is that the petitioners and their son

¶23

¶24

Madhukeerthy, all of them joined together and created the GPA dated 07.06.2009 and also created the sale deed dated 05.06.2017 and created gift deed on 24.08.2017 based on the forged GPA and committed the fraud on the complainant.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have not indulged in any such acts. The learned counsel submits that the complainant is the elder sister of petitioner No.1 and she has sold the property in favour of petitioner No.2 in terms of the registered sale agreement on 02.12.2004 and also executed the GPA in favour of petitioner No.1. The same was not registered at that time and subsequently based on the GPA executed earlier in 2004, the documents were registered on 05.06.2017. The learned counsel submits that from the date of execution of the sale agreement and also GPA, petitioner No.1 along with her husband is in possession of the property from 2004 till date. The learned counsel submits that these petitioners left the country in 2019 in the early hours of 23.04.2019 and these petitioners were not present on the date of presentation of the alleged gift deed dated 24.04.2019 and also produced the documents to show that they left the country on 23.04.2019 itself. When the

¶26

¶27

petitioners returned to the country, they came to know through the tenants that the documents are created and hence gave the complaint to the concerned police on 02.03.2021 and endorsement was given. Once again the complaint was given on 09.02.2022 and endorsement was given stating that it is a civil dispute. One more complaint was given on 12.02.2022 to the Assistant Commissioner of Police and to the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 14.02.2022 and so also to the Commissioner of Police on 14.02.2022 and no action was taken. The learned counsel submits that all the complaints are sent through registered post and private complaint was filed. When the complaint was given by the complainant on 11.03.2022, the same has been registered and hence the petitioners are before this Court. The learned counsel submits that it is a civil dispute between the parties and the endorsement was given by the police when the complaint was registered by the complainant and no action was taken when the complaint was given by petitioner No.1 and hence the petitioners may be enlarged on bail and the petitioners are ready to cooperate with the investigation.

¶28

¶29

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that an allegation is made against these two petitioners that the petitioners along with their son have indulged in creation of documents of GPA and on the strength of the said GPA, sale deed was created and also created gift deed with an intention to knock off the property of the complainant.

¶30

Having heard the respective learned counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, particularly taking note of the contents of the complaint, an allegation is made with regard to creation of sale deed and GPA. The learned counsel for the petitioners also places on record several documents before the Court regarding lodging of complaint from 02.03.2021 till February 2022 and no action was taken and private complaint was also filed and endorsement was given that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature. When such being the material available on record, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and this Court can direct the petitioners to cooperate with the Investigating Officer for investigation in the matter since the very allegation made against each other is civil in nature.

¶31

¶32

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶33

following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioners shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.46/2022 registered by HSR Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 419, 420, 468, 471 read with 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶36

(i) The petitioners shall surrender themselves before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.

¶37

(ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶38

(iii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the

¶39

¶40

investigation and they shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for.

¶41

(iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge-sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier.

¶42

(v) The petitioners shall mark their attendance once in a month i.e., on 30^th of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge-sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Smt M Prabhavathi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt M Prabhavathi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narasimha H Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Vikram Hosamani @ Mallikarjuna Hosamani Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Raghu Sriramula Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Madan Singh Vs the State of Karnataka

Madhu @ Slum @ Manoja Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunatha G Vs State by Hennur Police Station