Allowed

Mr Mahesh Kishan Motewar v. State by

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2024CRL.A/1753/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against rejection of anticipatory bail in a deposit-scheme cheating case. The Court found appellants had resigned as Directors before the complainant's investments, so no prima facie case under Section 9 KPID Act and no Section 18(2) bar; offences not punishable with death or life imprisonment. Allowed appeal, set aside rejection, granted anticipatory bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted: release on arrest on personal bond of Rs.2,00,000 each with one surety; appear before IO within fifteen days; co-operate with investigation; no witness tampering.

Mr Mahesh Kishan Motewar Vs State by — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:46045 CRL.A No. 1753 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1753 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR MAHESH KISHAN MOTEWAR SON OF KISHAN MOTEWAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT No.411, GANGARAJ HEIGHTS BALAJI NAGARA, DHANWADI PUNE MAHARASHTRA – 411 043.

¶9

SMT. LEENA MAHESH MOTEWAR WIFE OF MAHESH MOTEWAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT No.9 VIDYADEEP SOCIETY GULAB NAGAR, PUNE MAHARASHTRA – 411 043.

¶10

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT. VAISHALY MAHESH MOTEWAR WIFE OF MAHESH MOTEWAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT No. 5, BUILDING No. C DHANRAJ HEIGHTS, BALAJI NAGAR, PUNE MAHARASHTRA - 411 0413.

¶12

MR ABHISHEK MOTEWAR SON OF MAHESH KISHAN MOTEWAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT No.411, GANGARAJ HEIGHTS BALAJI NAGARA, DHANWADI, PUNE MAHARASHTRA – 411 043.

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI DHANANJAY JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W MS. AMRITA SHIVAPRASAD, ADVOCATE)

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:46045 CRL.A No. 1753 of 2024

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE BY CEN POLICE, CHITRADURGA REPRESNETED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶21

THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 16 OF KPIDEF ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.09.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA IN CRL.MISC.No.1046/2024 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANTS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF ARREST IN CR.No.26/2024 DATED 23.03.2024 FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 403, 406, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 9 OF KPIDEF ACT AND SECTION 21 OF THE BANNING OF UNREGULATED DEPOSIT SCHEMES ACT REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is filed by the appellants – accused Nos.1

¶26

to 3 and 5 praying to set-aside the order dated 05.09.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.1046/2024 by the Principal

¶27

District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, whereunder

¶28

the anticipatory bail petition sought by the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 in respect of Crime No.26/2024 of Chitradurga CEN Police Station registered for the

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:46045 CRL.A No. 1753 of 2024

¶30

offences under Sections 403, 406 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2004 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘KPID Act’) and Section 21 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019, came to be rejected.

¶31

Heard learned senior counsel for the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

¶32

One Sri.T.Paramesh has filed a complaint stating that believing the representation made by the Manager of Samruddha Jeevana Foods India Limited and Samruddha

¶33

Jeevana Multi State Multi Purpose Co-operative Society of Pune and on the assurance that he will get more interest, he made his investment in the said Society and it issued bond to him stating that his amount would be doubled within 5½ years. He made investment of Rs.25,000/-

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:46045 CRL.A No. 1753 of 2024

¶35

between 13.10.2009 to 31.12.2015 and his friends and relatives have also made investment and the total investment made was Rs.20,22,300/- and the bonds have been issued in their favour. It is stated that there are 42,300 members in the said Society and the Society has accumulated Rs.52,21,10,800/- and the Manager and the other members of the said Society locked it and cheated the members of the Society. The accused persons being the Directors of the said Society have cheated the members by not returning the deposit amount along with interest and committed the offence. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered in Crime No.26/2024 of Chitradurga CEN Police Station for the aforesaid offences. The appellants who have been arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5, apprehending their arrest filed the petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail. The said petition came to be rejected by the impugned order which is challenged in this appeal.

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:46045 CRL.A No. 1753 of 2024

¶37

Learned Senior counsel for the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 would contend that the appellant – accused No.1 was the Director of the said Samruddha Jeevana Multi State Multi Purpose Co-operative Society and he has resigned. He tendered his resignation on 10.10.2013 and it came to be accepted by the Resolution dated 17.10.2013 and now, he is no way concerned to the said Society. He further submits that the investment made by the complainant is after appellant No.1 resigned from the Directorship and therefore, he is not liable to return

¶38

any deposit made by the complainant and others, as he is no more a Director. He further submits that the list of Directors as per the Resolution dated 17.10.2013 does not contain name of the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 and therefore, the offence under Section 9 of the KPID Act is not attracted. Therefore, he contends that the bar under Section 18(2) of the KPID Act is not attracted. He further submits that the said Society has been wound up and the Liquidator has been appointed by order dated 18.04.2016 by the Central Registrar of the Co-operative

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:46045 CRL.A No. 1753 of 2024

¶41

Societies and therefore, the said Society is not in existence. He submits that appellant No.1, earlier had been arrested and he had been interrogated and he was in judicial custody for three years in other crime and the Hon’ble Sessions Court has granted bail to him. He further submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted him anticipatory bail in another case registered against him in Crime No.22/2020 of Karwar Police Station for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC and it also pertains to Samruddha Jeevana Multi

¶42

State Multi Purpose Co-operative Society. On these grounds, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order and grant anticipatory bail to the appellants.

¶43

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State would contend that the crime has been registered during March, 2024 and these appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 are absconding and

¶44

they are not available for interrogation. The quantum of money cheated by these appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:46045 CRL.A No. 1753 of 2024

¶47

and 5 is huge and therefore, they are required for custodial interrogation. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶48

Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has perused the impugned order and the other materials placed on record.

¶49

As per the averments of the complaint, the complainant and the other members have invested money and they have been issued with bond from the Samruddha Jeevana Multi State Multi Purpose Co-operative Society, Chitradurga. It is alleged in the complaint that the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 are the Directors of the said Society. On perusal of the documents produced, it would indicate that appellant No.1 who was the Director of the said Society has tendered his resignation dated 10.10.2013 and it has been accepted by the Resolution dated 17.10.2013. The list of Directors dated 18.10.2013

¶50

does not contain the name of either appellant No.1 or the other appellants. Therefore, the appellants – accused

¶51

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:46045 CRL.A No. 1753 of 2024

¶52

Nos.1 to 3 and 5 are not the Directors of the said Society as on the date of investment made by the complainant and others. Therefore, the question arises as to whether the offence under Section 9 of the KPID Act is attracted against the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 or not. Considering the said aspect that the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 are not in the Management / Directorship of the said Society, there is no prima facie case against them for the offence under section 9 of the KPID Act. Therefore, the bar under Section 18(2) of the KPID Act is not attracted. The appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 have undertaken to co-operate with the investigating agency in the investigation. The other offences alleged against the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 are not punishable either with death of imprisonment for life. Without considering these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the anticipatory bail petition of the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 which requires interference by this Court. The appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 have made out grounds for setting aside

¶53

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:46045 CRL.A No. 1753 of 2024

¶54

the impugned order and grant of anticipatory bail. In the result, the following;

¶55

ORDER

¶56

The appeal is allowed . The impugned order dated 05.09.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.1046/2024 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga is set-aside. Consequently, the petition filed by the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C is allowed. The appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest

¶57

by the Chitradurga CEN Police Station in Crime No.26/2024 subject to the following conditions;

¶58

(i) The appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 shall appear before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from today and execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees two lakh only) each, with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶59

(ii) The appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 shall co-operate with the investigating agency in

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC:46045 CRL.A No. 1753 of 2024

¶61

10 -

¶62

the investigation and they have to appear before the investigating agency whenever called for.

¶63

(iii) The appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5

¶64

shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶65

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶66

GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Mr Mahesh Kishan Motewar v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Mahesh Kishan Motewar v. State 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

Sri. Nagarajappa @ Nagaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Savin S/O Siddappa Daddi Vs State of Karnataka

Nataraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Sonnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Sumathi T R Vs Mr M Lakshman

V Muniraju, Vs State by Udupi Town Police Station