Dismissed

Sri P Poorna Chandra Rao v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC5 Oct 2023CRL.P/2878/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka heard a petition for anticipatory bail in a cheating case. The High Court dismissed the petition because the petitioner failed to comply with interim bail conditions and provided no explanation for address discrepancies. Consequently, the court held the petitioner was not entitled to discretionary relief.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed; no entitlement to discretionary relief granted.

Sri P Poorna Chandra Rao Vs State of Karnataka by — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:35993 CRL.P No. 2878 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2878 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI P. POORNA CHANDRA RAO AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O SRI PRAKASH RAO R/AT NO.3, ALAGIRISWAMY STREET, VIJAYALAKSHMIPURAM AMBATTUR, CHENNAI - 600 053 TAMILNADU.

¶10

Digitally signed by NANDINI MS Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

PERMANENT R/O NO.1-91A GOVARDHANAGIRI, PICHATUR NAGALAPURAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 587.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI NAGAMUNI P, ADV.)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION BENGALURU.

¶16

REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SMT. SOWMYA R, HCGP)

¶19

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.258/2022 OF WHITEFIELD P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.420 OF IPC AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC:35993 CRL.P No. 2878 of 2023

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Accused in Crime No.258/2022 registered by Whitefield Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC, is before this Court under Section 438 Cr.PC.

¶25

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶26

FIR in Crime No.258/2022 was registered by Whitefield Police against the petitioner herein for the aforesaid offence on the basis of the complaint lodged by Chandra S/o late Venkatesh Murthy dated 23.08.2022.

¶27

In the complaint, it is averred that the complainant was looking for a residential two bedroom apartment and had approached the petitioner based on the advertisement published by him and he had represented to her that he was the owner of a two bedroom apartment. The complainant had paid a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- through bank transaction to the petitioner herein as lease amount in respect of the property which he allegedly owned. The said property allegedly was in

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:35993 CRL.P No. 2878 of 2023

¶29

possession of one Deepak and the petitioner has represented to the complainant that the said tenant would be vacating the premises, and thereafter, the possession of the same would be handed over to the complainant. However, the petitioner had subsequently not handed over the possession of the property as assured to the complainant, and therefore, she had requested to refund the amount of Rs.10,50,000/- paid by her. Petitioner allegedly did not pay the said amount inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant, and therefore, she had approached the police and lodged the complaint, which had resulted in registering FIR in Crime No.258/2022.

¶30

Apprehending arrest in the said case, petitioner had filed Crl.Misc.No.1682/2022 before the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, which was dismissed on 17.09.2022. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶31

Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, has prayed to allow the petition.

¶32

Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:35993 CRL.P No. 2878 of 2023

¶35

Petitioner had allegedly published an advertisement for lease of the property owned by him and in response to the same, the complainant had approached him and had paid a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- through bank transaction. Though the petitioner had assured to hand over the possession of the property to the complainant, he had failed to keep up his assurance and when the complainant had requested to refund the amount of Rs.10,50,000/- paid by her, the petitioner did not pay the said amount. It is under these circumstances, the complainant had filed the police complaint.

¶36

Considering the nature of allegations made in the complaint and also having regard to the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court had granted interim bail to the petitioner.

¶37

Learned HCGP, on instructions, has submitted that the petitioner has not complied with the conditions imposed by this Court while granting interim bail and he has not appeared before the Investigation Officer inspite of he being summoned.

¶38

In the bail application filed before the Sessions Court, petitioner has shown his permanent address at Chittoor in

¶39

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC:35993 CRL.P No. 2878 of 2023

¶41

Andhra Pradesh. In the bail application filed before this Court, he has shown his address at Ambattur in Chennai, Tamilnadu. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not given proper explanation for the failure on the part of the petitioner to comply with the conditions imposed by this Court while granting him interim bail. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.

¶42

SD/JUDGE

¶43

Sri P Poorna Chandra Rao v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P Poorna Chandra Rao v. State of Karnataka by

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

Aslam Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Manohar S @ Manu Vs State of Karnataka

Mukesh Darjee Vs State of Karnataka

Chetan @ Shivu @ Kariya Chetu Vs State of Karnataka

Kripa Vaibhav C Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri. Nayaz @ Syed Nayaz Vs State by