Allowed

Sri Surendra v. State by Mandya West

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2023CRL.P/9801/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed two criminal petitions filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. granting anticipatory bail to petitioners accused of misappropriation and cheating in a cooperative society, directing police to release them upon arrest subject to bond and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed; police directed to release petitioners on bail upon arrest subject to conditions of bond, appearance, cooperation, and non-reoffending.

Sri Surendra Vs State by Mandya West — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:41405 CRL.P No. 9801 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 10186 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9801 OF 2023

¶6

C/W

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10186 OF 2023

¶8

IN CRL.P.NO.9801/2023:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI SURENDRA S/O LATE CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT TALASASANA VILLAGE DODDABYADARAHALLI KASABA HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA - 571 434.

¶11

Digitally signed by B A KRISHNA KUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. PAVITHRA M C W/O MOHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS HEALTH DEPARTMENT R/AT TALASASANA VILLAGE DODDABYADARAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA - 571434.

¶13

SMT. PRATHIMA W/O LATE G.D. SHIVAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT B GOWDAGERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MANDYA - 571 404.

¶14

SRI MADHU M.C S/O CHIKKANANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO. 34, MACHAHALLI VILLAGE DUDDA HOBLI, HULLIKERE

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:41405 CRL.P No. 9801 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 10186 of 2023

¶17

MANDYA - 571 405.

¶18

SRI SRIDHAR M.A S/O ADHINARAYANA AGEDA BOUT 39 YEARS R/AT #413, 7TH CROSS GANDHINAGAR MANDYA CITY 571 401.

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI VIVEK REDDY S, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI K.N. SUBBA REDDY, ADV.)

¶21

AND:

¶22

STATE BY MANDYA WEST POLICE, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MANDYA - 571 401.

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)

¶25

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.117/2023 OF MANDYA WEST P.S., MANDYA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.406,420,465,468,471,201,120-B,114 R/W SEC.149 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA IN CRL.MISC.NO.751/2023.THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA HAS REJECTED THE BAIL PETITION ON 22.09.2023 IN CRL.MISC.NO.751/2023.

¶26

IN CRL.P.NO.10186/2023:

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

1 . SRI MOHANA KUMARA S/O SURENDRA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT SHAMBULINGESHWARA TEMPLE

¶29

TALSASANA, DODDABYRAHALLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA - 571 434.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:41405 CRL.P No. 9801 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 10186 of 2023

¶32

2 . KUMARI RAMAYA G.R

¶33

D/O RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT 153, SABBANAKUPPE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK K SHETTAHALLI HOBLI GANGANGOORU, T.M. HOSUR MANDYA - 571 807.

¶34

…PETITIONERS

¶35

(BY SRI VIVEK REDDY S, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI SUBBA REDDY K.N, ADV.)

¶36

AND:

¶37

STATE BY MANDYA WEST POLICE REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶38

(BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R-1; SMT. MANJULA MUNAVALLI, ADV.)

¶39

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 438 CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 22.09.2023 IN CRL.MISC.NO.751/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA AND TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THE PETITIONERS BEING APPREHENDED ON THE COMPLAINT AND FIR IN CR.NO.117/2023 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT MANDYA WEST POLICE STATION FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 201, 120B, 114 R/W 149 OF IPC AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST.

¶40

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

¶41

ORDER

¶42

Accused Nos. 1 to 7 in Crime No.117/2023 registered by Mandya West Police Station, Mandya, for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 201, 120B,

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:41405 CRL.P No. 9801 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 10186 of 2023

¶45

114 and 149 of IPC, are before this Court in these two petitions filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶47

On the basis of the typed complaint dated

¶48

17.08.2023 lodged by the Chief Executive Officer of Vishwagnani Employees Development Co-operative Society, Mandya, the Station House Officer of Mandya West Police Station, has registered FIR in Crime No.117/2023 against the petitioners herein for the aforesaid offences.

¶49

Accused No.1 is the ex-president of the complainant Society and accused No.2 is the ex-secretary of complainant society. Accused Nos.3 to 7 are said to be the employees of the Society and also relatives of accused No.1. Apprehending arrest in the said case, accused Nos.1 to 7/petitioners had filed Crl. Misc. No.751/2023 before the Court of IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, which was dismissed on 22.09.2023. Therefore, they are before this Court.

¶50

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that at the behest of the present

¶51

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:41405 CRL.P No. 9801 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 10186 of 2023

¶52

management of the Society, the CEO of the Society has filed a false complaint against the ex-president, ex-secretary and other employees of the Society. He submits that on the allegation of misappropriation in the Society during the term of first accused, enquiry is being held under Section 64 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act and the said enquiry is still pending. The said enquiry is initiated based on the complaint made by the henchmen of the present president. Being unsuccessful to get an order in the said proceedings, a false police complaint is lodged only with an intention to harass and coerce the earlier management of the Society. He submits that accused Nos.3 to 7 have been granted interim bail by this Court and they have not violated the bail conditions. He also submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to co-operate with the investigating officer for the purpose of investigation. He submits that the first accused has demitted his office in the year 2021 and in the year 2021, there is an Audit Report filed prior to the first petitioner demitting his office. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶53

Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the bail petition and submits that serious charges of misappropriation

¶54

¶55

NC: 2023:KHC:41405 CRL.P No. 9801 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 10186 of 2023

¶56

are made against the accused persons and therefore, custodial interrogation of accused persons is necessary.

¶57

Learned counsel for respondent No.2/defecto complainant has also opposed the bail petition. She submits that accused persons have threatened the complainant and other material witnesses in the case. In that regard, she has filed an affidavit of the complainant. She also submits that first accused was involved in similar criminal cases and number of cases have been registered against him. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition.

¶58

FIR in Crime No.117/2023 has been registered by Mandya West Police Station, Mandya, against the petitioners herein based on the complaint of the CEO of the Society, of which accused No.1 is the Past-President and accused No.2 is the Past-Secretary. The allegations in the complaint is that during the term of accused persons, there has been misappropriation and the accused persons by misusing their power have caused financial loss to the Society. The material made available to the Court by learned Senior counsel for the petitioners would go to show that after the first petitioner had

¶59

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:41405 CRL.P No. 9801 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 10186 of 2023

¶60

demitted his office in the year 2021, on the basis of complaint made by one Sri. Nagaraj, the competent authority has initiated proceedings under Section 64 of the Karnataka CoOperative Societies Act and proceedings in the said case is still pending. Even before a Report is submitted in the said proceedings, a separate police complaint is filed on the allegation of misappropriation by the erstwhile management of the Society. The provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, provides for a mechanism for the purpose of adjudicating the allegations and complaints made with regard to mismanagement and misappropriation in the Society and in the present case, already an enquiry under Section 64 of the Societies Act has been initiated against the earlier management of the Society.

¶61

Though learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that there are number of criminal cases pending against accused No.1 and he has cheated many other managements, she has not produced any material in support of the said contention of hers.

¶62

¶63

NC: 2023:KHC:41405 CRL.P No. 9801 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 10186 of 2023

¶64

From a reading of the complaint averment, it is seen that allegation against the petitioners is about mismanagement and misappropriation of the funds of the Society. The said allegations are principally based on documentary evidence and entire documents relating to the case are in the custody of present management and the complainant. Therefore, the apprehension put-forth by the complainant that the petitioners are trying to tamper with the evidence is ill-founded. The complainant has stated that the petitioners have threatened the complainant. Except the affidavit filed by the complainant, there is no material to show that the petitioners herein have threatened the complainant or other witnesses. Complainant has not filed any police complaint against the petitioners with regard to the alleged threat by them. The offences alleged against the petitioners are all triable by the Court of Magistrate and the maximum punishment for the alleged offence is imprisonment by seven years. Accused Nos.3 to 7/petitioners in Crl.P.No.9801/2023 have been granted interim bail and there is no complaint that they have misused the order of interim bail granted to them.

¶65

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:41405 CRL.P No. 9801 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 10186 of 2023

¶66

Learned Senior counsel has submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation officer. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioners have made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶67

Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. The respondent - Police or any other police in the State of Karnataka are directed to release the petitioners in the event of their arrest in Crime No.117/2023 registered by Mandya West Police Station, Mandya, for the offence punishable under Section 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 201, 120B, 114 and 149 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶68

The Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.

¶69

Petitioners shall regularly appear before the Trial Court without fail unless exempted by the Trial Court for valid reasons.

¶70

10 -

¶71

NC: 2023:KHC:41405 CRL.P No. 9801 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 10186 of 2023

¶72

Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witness and they shall co-operate with the police for investigation and appear before them whenever called upon.

¶73

The petitioners shall not involve in similar offences in future;

¶74

SD/JUDGE

¶75

Sri Surendra v. State by Mandya West

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Surendra v. State by Mandya West

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

Nataraju Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs. Shirin Rose Tharcies Vs State by Inspector of Customs

Moideen Rasheed Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Nandini Vs the State of Karnataka

Santhosh Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sunil @ Tipper Sunil Vs the State of Karnataka