Partly allowed

K Umadevi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2023CRL.P/8894/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Criminal Petition in part, ordering the release of seized gold ornaments to the petitioner on the condition that she furnishes a bank guarantee for their value to be kept till the conclusion of the trial.

What did the court decide?

Gold ornaments seized in PF No.97/2019 released to the petitioner subject to furnishing a bank guarantee for their value to be kept in force till the conclusion of the trial.

K Umadevi Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:45483 CRL.P No. 8894 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8894 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

K. UMADEVI W/O. SRINIVAS C, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, NO.13/B, I MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, MANJUNATHA LAYOUT, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD, NAGAWARA, BANGALORE-560077.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY AMRUTHAHALLI POLICE, NOW REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2021 AT ANNEXURE-A, PASSED BY THE VII A.C.M.M., IN C.C.NO.11114/2020 (CR.NO.217/2019) OF AMRUTHA HALLI POLICE, AND DIRECT THAT THE GOLD ORNAMENTS SEIZED UNDER P.F.NO.97/2019 DATED 15.12.2019

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:45483 CRL.P No. 8894 of 2021

¶17

BE RELEASED IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER, PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE CASE.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner has challenged an order dated

¶21

23.01.2021 passed by VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in C.C.No.11114/2020, by which, an application filed under Sections 451 and 457 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 was rejected.

¶22

A prosecution of the petitioner and two others was initiated by the respondent No.1 on the basis of information furnished on 10.12.2019 that the accused Nos.2 and 3 had advertised on 99acres.com that apartments behind Jakkur Aerodrome was under construction and was available for sale. The complainant went to the sales office and met the accused Nos.1 and 2 who represented that the value of the apartment was Rs.58,00,000/- and a discount was offered for ten early customers and that the value of the

¶23

apartment would be Rs.45,00,000/-. The complainant claimed that he drew a cheque favouring Tirumala

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:45483 CRL.P No. 8894 of 2021

¶25

Constructions and Developers for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 09.09.2019 and again a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/on 20.09.2019. He claimed that a memorandum of understanding was executed on 21.09.2019 by the accused Nos.1 and 2 who assured to handover the papers relating to the property for getting a housing loan. He claimed that the accused thereafter became incommunicado and could not be traced and therefore, he lodged a complaint, that he was cheated of a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-. Based on this, the respondent No.1 registered Cr.No.217/2019 and took up investigation for the offence punishable under Sections 471, 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (henceforth referred to as 'IPC' for short). Later a charge sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 423, 424, 465, 471, 482, 483, 109 read with Section 34 of IPC. The Trial Court took cognizance and issued process.

¶26

During the pendency of the proceedings, the

¶27

accused No.3 being the mother of the accused No.2, filed an application under Sections 451 and 457 of Criminal

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:45483 CRL.P No. 8894 of 2021

¶30

Procedure Code for interim custody of the jewels that was seized from her house. The Trial Court rejected the application in terms of the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner did not produce any documents in support of her claim that she was the owner of the gold ornaments that was seized. Being aggrieved by the said order, the accused No.3/petitioner has filed this petition.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint was in respect of cheating the complainant of a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- and the same was recovered by the investigating officer. He submits that the

¶32

gold ornaments that were seized from the house of the petitioner belonged to her and was not purchased out of the proceeds of crime allegedly committed by the accused No.2. He therefore contends that there was no justification for the Trial Court in rejecting the application, more particularly, having regard to the fact that these gold ornaments were in the possession of the petitioner over a period of time and the ownership of these gold ornaments could not be established by producing corresponding bills. Therefore, he submits that

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:45483 CRL.P No. 8894 of 2021

¶35

having regard to the fact that these gold ornaments were

¶36

seized from the house of the petitioner, the same needs to be released to the interim custody of the petitioner subject to any condition that may be imposed by this Court.

¶37

The learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that the investigating officer had recorded the statement of CW.22 who stated that the accused No.2 was in the habit of purchasing the gold ornaments from him and that he had purchased some gold ornaments for his intended marriage. He therefore, submits that the gold ornaments which are seized from the house of the accused No.2 are to be considered as having purchased out of the proceeds of crime, particularly, in view of the statement given by the accused No.2 in the seizure mahazar. He therefore contends that notwithstanding the fact that a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- was seized by the respondent No.1, yet the question whether the gold ornaments seized from the house of the accused No.2 was purchased out of the proceeds of crime, is a matter of fact

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:45483 CRL.P No. 8894 of 2021

¶40

that has to be established, and this court cannot prejudge the issue.

¶41

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶42

As stated by the learned High Court Government Pleader, if the investigating officer has recovered a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- which was purportedly the amount paid by the complainant to the accused No.2, the grievance if any, of the complainant could be met. As also rightly contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader, the mahazar under which the gold ornaments were seized from the house of the petitioner/accused No.2 discloses that accused No.2 stated before the police that the amounts that he had received from various customers, was utilized to purchase gold ornaments. Accordingly, some of the ornaments which were found in his house was seized. Therefore, there is no clear evidence at this stage to establish that the gold ornaments belonged to the petitioner and or whether the proceeds of crime were used to purchase the gold ornaments. Therefore having

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:45483 CRL.P No. 8894 of 2021

¶45

regard to the fact that the interest of the complainant is to be sufficiently taken care of, it is appropriate to release the gold ornaments subject to the petitioner furnishing suitable bank guarantee for the value of the gold ornaments.

¶46

In that view of the matter, this petition is allowed in part. The gold ornaments seized in PF No.97/2019 is ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner subject to the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for the value of the gold and such bank guarantee shall be kept in force till the conclusion of the trial before the Trial Court. The Trial Court shall pass appropriate orders regarding the bank guarantee.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

K Umadevi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Umadevi 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

S Balaji Vs the State of Karnataka by

D Mahammad Vs State of Karnataka by

K. H. Umashankar Vs Smt. R. Chandrakala

Anil Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

The Commissioner, Vs Gangamma

Smt. Rajitha Govardhan Vs Smt. Geetha Madhusudhan