Allowed

Smt Priyadarishini D v. State of Karnataka by SHO

Karnataka HC14 Aug 2023CRL.A/692/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant prayed to set aside rejection of anticipatory bail petition under KPID Act. Court held appellant not a director of financial establishment, section 9 not attracted, section 18 bar does not apply, granting anticipatory bail subject to conditions and cooperate with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 21.02.2023 in Crl.Misc. No. 963/2023 set aside. Appellant granted anticipatory bail in crime No. 66/2022 to be released if arrested subject to conditions: personal bond, appearance, cooper

Smt Priyadarishini D Vs State of Karnataka by SHO — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:28787 CRL.A No. 692 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 692 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. PRIYADARISHINI D W/O NAYAN KUMAR .V AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O No.27, 1^ST FLOOR 2^ND PHASE, KBL ENCLAVE VIJAYANAGAR 4^TH STAGE NEAR CORPORATION BANK MYSORE - 570 017.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI SHERVIL ADAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO HANUMANTHA NAGAR P S BANGALORE - 560 019. REPTD. BY GOVT. PLEADER HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II)

¶15

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 16 OF KARNATAKA PROTECTION OF INTEREST OF DEPOSITORS IN FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT, 2004, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU PASSED IN CRL.MISC. No.963/2023 VIDE ORDER DATED 21.02.2023 AND ETC.,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:28787 CRL.A No. 692 of 2023

¶18

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal is filed by appellant – accused No. 4 praying to set aside the order dated 21.02.2023 passed in Crl.Misc. No. 963/2023 where under the anticipatory bail petition of this appellant – accused No. 4 sought in respect of crime No. 66/2022 of Hanumanthanagara Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 465, 468, 470, 471, 417, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC

¶21

and under Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2004 (for short `the KPID Act’) came to be rejected.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for appellant – accused No.

¶23

4 and learned SPP-II for respondent – State.

¶24

It is the case of the prosecution that the office bearers of Nishka Vividoddesha Souharda Cooperative Limited (for short `the financial establishment’), Bengaluru failed to repay the Fixed Deposits on its maturity to the

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:28787 CRL.A No. 692 of 2023

¶26

complainant and threatened the complainant when he demanded payment of maturity amount. Said complaint came to be registered in Hanumanthanagar Police Station in crime No. 66/2022 for the aforesaid offences arraigning this appellant as accused No. 4. The appellant – accused No. 4 apprehending her arrest has filed Crl.Misc. No. 963/2023 seeking anticipatory bail and same came to be rejected by the Principal City Civil and Sessions judge, Bengaluru by the impugned order which is challenged in this appeal.

¶27

Learned counsel for appellant – accused No. 4 would contend that appellant – accused No. 4 is in no way concerned with the financial establishment. The appellant – accused No. 4 has resigned to the post of Director of the other company in the year 2013. He further submits that the Directors of the financial establishment namely, accused Nos. 6, 17 to 19, 24 and 25 have been granted anticipatory bail by the Special Court. As appellant – accused No. 4 is in no way concerned with the financial

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:28787 CRL.A No. 692 of 2023

¶29

establishment, provisions of Section 9 of the KPID Act are not attracted and therefore, the bar contained under Section 18 of the KPID Act would not apply. The appellant – accused No. 4 is ready to cooperate with the Police in the investigation. The appellant – accused No. 4 is alleged to have received a sum of Rs.20.00 lakhs transferred by her ex-husband – accused No. 5 and it is in relation to the matrimonial dispute between them and she is not aware from out of which funds such transfer has been made by her ex-husband to her. The appellant – accused No. 4 is now married to another person and is having dependants. Without considering all these aspects the Special Court has passed impugned order which requires interference by this Court. With this he prayed to allow the appeal and grant anticipatory bail to the appellant – accused No. 4.

¶30

Per contra learned SPP-II appearing for respondent – State would contend that even though this appellant – accused No. 4 is not a Director of the financial establishment, she is a Director in other sister concerns,

¶31

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:28787 CRL.A No. 692 of 2023

¶32

Nishka Power Project Company Limited, Nishka Courier and Cargo Solutions Private Limited, Nishka Tours and Travels Limited, Nishka Marketing Services Limited, Nishka Softech Private Limited. Presence of appellant – accused No. 4 is required for investigation and inspite of service of notice during January, 2023 she has not appeared before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of enquiry. There is allegation of huge transfer of funds by one of the Directors of this financial establishment to the account of this appellant – accused No. 4. Considering all these aspects learned Special Judge has passed the impugned order rejecting the anticipatory bail petition filed by this appellant – accused No. 4 which does not call for any interference by this Court. With this he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶33

Having heard the learned counsel for appellant – accused No. 4 and learned SPP-II for the respondent – State this Court has perused the FIR, complaint and other documents.

¶34

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:28787 CRL.A No. 692 of 2023

¶35

Admittedly this appellant – accused No. 4 is not the Director of the financial establishment. There is an allegation that funds of the financial establishment are transferred to other companies, namely, Nishka Power Project Company Limited, Nishka Courier and Cargo Solutions Private Limited, Nishka Tours and Travels Limited, Nishka Marketing Services Limited, Nishka Infrastructure and Land Development and Nishka Softech Solutation Private Limited. One of the documents produced by the learned counsel for appellant – accused No. 4 would reveal that this appellant – accused No. 4 has resigned from the post of Director of Nishka Power Project Limited. Petition filed by this appellant – accused No. 4 seeking divorce from accused No. 5 – Sri. Phaniraj Gowda came to be allowed and their marriage has been dissolved by decree of divorce granted in M.C. No. 609/2015. The allegation of transfer of funds is from the personal account of accused No. 5 to the personal account of appellant – accused No. 4. As per the contention of the learned counsel for appellant – accused No. 4, transfer of funds in

¶36

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:28787 CRL.A No. 692 of 2023

¶37

a sum of Rs.20.00 lakhs (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) by accused No. 5 to appellant – accused No. 4 is with regard to the matrimonial dispute and with regard to alimony. Even though FIR is registered on 22.03.2022, case is still under investigation. Appellant – accused No. 4 has undertaken to cooperate with the Police in the investigation. As the appellant – accused No. 4 is not the Director of the financial establishment, the provisions of Section 9 of the KPID Act are not attracted against her. Therefore, the bar contained under Section 18 of the KPID Act cannot be invoked as Section 9 is not attracted against this appellant – accused No. 4. The other offences under IPC alleged against this appellant – accused No. 4 are not punishable with either death or imprisonment for life. Without considering all these aspects learned Special Judge has passed the impugned order which requires interference by this Court. The appellant – accused No. 4 has made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and granting anticipatory bail to her.

¶38

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:28787 CRL.A No. 692 of 2023

¶39

In the result, the following;

¶40

O R D E R

¶41

Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.02.2023 passed in Crl.Misc. No. 963/2023 is set aside. Crl.Misc. No. 963/2023 stands allowed. The appellant – accused No. 4 is granted anticipatory bail and she is ordered to be released on bail in the event of her arrest in crime No. 66/2022 of Hanumanthanagar Police Station subject to the following conditions:

¶42

i. Appellant – accused No. 4 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/(Rupees Five Lakhs only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶43

ii. Appellant – accused No. 4 shall appear before the Investigating Officer voluntarily within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and execute the bail bond and furnish surety.

¶44

iii. Appellant – accused No. 4 shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in the investigation.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2023:KHC:28787 CRL.A No. 692 of 2023

¶47

iv. Appellant – accused No. 4 shall make herself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required.

¶48

v. Appellant – accused No. 4 shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer.

¶49

vi. Appellant – accused No. 4 shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

LRS

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Smt Priyadarishini D v. State of Karnataka by SHO

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Priyadarishini D v. State of Karnataka by SHO

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

Sri. Chandrashekar T.Chandru Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Suresh Babu Vs State by Anti Corruption Bureau

Sri N C Thippeswamy Vs Kumari Neha T

Mahesha Vs State of Karnataka by

Nandisha Vs State of Karnataka

Adeebulla Sharief Vs State by Kadugondanahalli Police