Allowed

Sri. Rahul Chakrapani v. State by Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2024CRL.A/1344/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of an anticipatory bail application of company directors accused of collecting deposits without repayment under IPC cheating offences and the KPIDFE Act. The High Court held no fraudulent default was established at this stage and granted anticipatory bail with conditions, setting aside the Sessions Court order.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to appellants/accused No.2 to 4 in Crime No.224/2023; impugned order set aside; release on bond of Rs.2,00,000 each with two sureties subject to conditions.

Sri. Rahul Chakrapani Vs State by Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38743 CRL.A No. 1344 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1344 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. RAHUL CHAKRAPANI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O SRI CHAKRAPANI NAMBOORI KANDATHIL R/AT NAMBOORI KANDATHIL, THERTHALLY P O ALAKODE VIA KANNUR DISTRICT

¶8

KERALA - 670571.

¶9

SRI ANIL CHAKRAPANI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O SRI CHAKRAPANI NAMBOORI KANDATHIL R/AT NAMBOORI KANDATHIL, THERTHALLY P O

¶10

ALAKODE VIA KANNUR DISTRICT KERALA - 670571.

¶11

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SMT SINDHU CHAKRAPANI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS D/O SRI CHAKRAPANI W/O SRI SATHEESAN CHULLY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NAMBOORI KANDATHIL THERTHALLY P O ALAKODE VIA KANNUR DISTRICT KERALA - 670571.

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI. BINU M.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:38743 CRL.A No. 1344 of 2024

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE BY KARNATAKA

¶19

CEN CRIME P S MANGALURU CITY REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560001.

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP)

¶22

THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.16 OF KPIDFE ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.06.2024 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.113/2024 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU AND GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE APPELLANTS IN CR.NO.224/2023 FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 406,409,418,420,468,34 OF IPC AND SEC.9 OF THE KARANTAKA PROTECTION OF INTERST OF DEPOSITORS IN FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT 2004 REGISTERED BY CEN CRIME P.S., MANGALURU CITY, WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, MANGALURU CITY MANGALURU.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is filed against the order dated 14.06.2024 passed by the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru in Crl.Misc.No.113/2024,

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38743 CRL.A No. 1344 of 2024

¶27

wherein, the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶28

Heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record.

¶29

FIR in Crime No.224/2023 was registered at CEN

¶30

crime police station, Mangaluru city against one Royal Travancore Farmer Producer Company Limited and the appellants and others, for the offence punishable under Section 406, 409, 418, 420, 468 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2004^� .

¶31

The gist of the complaint lodged by one Jnanesha son of Amaresh is that the appellants being the directors of one Royal Travancore Farmer Producer Company Limited induced him and others to invest money promising good profits and thereafter, without returning the fixed deposits, cheated the complainant and other depositors.

¶32

As per complaint averments, complainant deposited a sum of Rs.11,000/- and the accused have collected about

¶33

� Mentioned as Karnataka Protection of Interest Depositors Exorbitant Act, 2004 in FIR.

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38743 CRL.A No. 1344 of 2024

¶35

Rs.60,00,000/- from 600 depositors and cheated them, without returning the amount as assured.

¶36

The learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that there are several cases registered against appellants and therefore, they are habitual offenders and in the event of grant of anticipatory bail, they may not co-operate with the investigation and may flee from justice. He contended that in view of the allegations in the complaint, the appellants are required for custodial interrogation and therefore, they are not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶37

The learned Sessions Judge refused to grant

¶38

anticipatory bail to the appellants on the ground that there is a bar under Section 18(2) of KPIDFE Act for entertaining a petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶39

The appellants claim to be innocent of the alleged charges levelled against them. It is contended that even if the entire allegations in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in its entirety, such allegations do not constitute any offence or make out a case against them for the alleged offences.

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38743 CRL.A No. 1344 of 2024

¶41

The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that even accepting the allegations in the complaint that the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.11,000/-, such deposit was made on 20.05.2023 and the maturity date is 20.09.2026, however he lodged the complaint on 07.12.2023 i.e., much prior to the date of maturity. He has filed a copy of the statement to show that on 12.08.2024, a sum of Rs.12,000/- was paid to the complainant.

¶42

The prosecution has to establish in due course that the appellants have fraudulently defaulted the repayment of deposit in maturity along with any benefit in the form of interest, profits, as promised by them. The fraudulent intention on the part of the appellants cannot be imputed at this stage. Though, the case was registered on 07.12.2023, so far the appellants are not arrested in this case. Offences alleged are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in other cases registered against the appellants, they are enlarged on bail. Appellants have undertaken to offer sufficient surety to ensure their presence before the Court and to cooperate with the investigation.

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38743 CRL.A No. 1344 of 2024

¶44

In the above facts and circumstances, by imposing suitable conditions, the relief sought by the appellants can be granted. Accordingly, the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i) Appeal is allowed .

¶47

ii) Impugned order is set-aside.

¶48

iii) In the event of arrest of the appellants / accused No.2 to 4 in Crime No.224/2023 of CEN Crime Police Station, Mangaluru City, they shall be released subject to following conditions:

¶49

(a) They shall execute a bond for a sum Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) each with two sureties for the likesome, out of which one shall be a local surety.

¶50

b) They shall furnish proof of their residential address and shall inform the Investigation Officer/Court, if there is any change in the address.

¶51

c) They shall be available for the purpose of investigation as and when required and shall co-operate with the investigation.

¶52

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:38743 CRL.A No. 1344 of 2024

¶53

d) They shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses/evidence in any manner.

¶54

e) They shall be regular in attending the Court proceedings.

¶55

Records received in this case shall be sent back forthwith.

¶56

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶57

PHM/LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Sri. Rahul Chakrapani v. State by Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Rahul Chakrapani v. State by 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

Sri Shivanna Vs State of Karnataka

Lakshmi Narayan Vs State through Siddapura P S

Chetankumar@ Chetu @Basaralu Chetu Vs State of Karnataka

Vidyadhara B S @ Vikas Vs State of Karnataka

Shivaprasad @ Prasi @ Parsi Vs State by Thilak Park Police Station

Derangula Madhu Vs State of Karnataka by