Crl.Misc.No.3053/2024 KABC010086112024 IN THE COURT OF THE LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 61) :Present : Sri Narashimsa.M.V., B.Com., LL.B., LX Addl. City C ivil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Dated: This the 3rd day of April 2024 : Crl.Misc.No.3053/2024: Petitioners/ 1. Sri.Ramaswamy N. Accused :- S/o. Narayanaswamy Gowda, Aged about 66 years, R/at Ramagondanahally village, Singanayakanahally, Yelahanka, Bengaluru-60 064.

2. Jayashree R., W/o. Karthik M.G., Aged about 32 years, R/at No.69, Sidlaghatta Road, Sairam Temple Street, Bhatrenahally, Bengaluru-562135.

3. Neyaruthya R., W/o. Prithwi Bandappa, Aged about 29 years, R/at Ramagondanahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru-60 064. Now r/at No.652/8, 1st Cross, B.K.Nagar, Yeshwanthapur, Bengaluru-60 022.

(Rep by Sri Prasanna D.P. – Advocate) V/s Crl.Misc.No.3053/2024 RESPONDENT : The State of Karnataka By : Yelahanka New Town Police Station, Bengaluru. (Rep. by: Public Prosecutor)

ORDER

Accused No. 1 to 3 in Yelahanka New Police Station Crime No. 150/2024 have filed this application under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C for anticipatory bail. They are alleged to have committed offence punishable u/S 504, 506, 406, 420 r/w. 34 of IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case as forthcoming from petition are:

The petitioners are owners of property bearing Sy.No.47/7 measuring 12 guntas and Sy.No.50/2 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas. After negotiations they have entered with an agreements to sell in favour of complainant in respect of Sy.No.47/7 measuring 12 guntas for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-. On such agreement complainant has paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- through cheque on 11.03.2011 another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is paid to sellers. There afterwards petitioners have allegedly executed another agreement in respect to Sy.No.50/2 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas for a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- as per agreement dated.12.04.2010 in favour of Gowramma the wife of complainant, on such agreement they have paid a sum of Rs.10 lakhs to 1st petitioner on the very same day and on 09.04.2010 and another sum of Rs.5 lakhs through cheque Crl.Misc.No.3053/2024 thereby totally complainant and his wife have paid a sum of Rs.28 lakhs to petitioners. Further in complainant it is alleged that as per agreement, petitioners have to register the sale deeds in favour of complainant and his wife within 11 months from the date of the De- Notification of such property by BDA. However, the said property is acquired by BDA in the year 2018 itself. Hence, complainant has requested the petitioners for return of said amount at that juncture petitioners have refused to return the said amount and also threatened with dire consequences. Hence complainant has filed complaint before respondent police for cheating of Rs.33 lakhs paid by complainant.

3. The grounds urged in this petition are that: Petitioners

have not committed any offence as alleged against them, entire allegation are civil in nature and is based on documentary evidence, The petitioners never executed any agreement in favour of wife of complainant and by using old paper they created the alleged sale agreement and lodged false complaint against petitioners. The petitioners further submitted that complainant has returned the dues to 1st petitioner through a cheque in the year 2010, but now to the shock of petitioners through a cheque in the year 2010, but now to the shock of petitioners they have concocted story and by creating document filed, complaint before respondent police and the Crl.Misc.No.3053/2024 respondent police have also registered complaint without verifying the documents. Even if prosecution’s case is true the entire transaction is civil in nature and criminal colored with. As per the document produced by complaint, it is dated 12.04.2010 but it is drafted on paper dated 18.06.2008 which is purchased in favour of one Srinivasaiah S/o. Narayanaswamy. Hence it is clear by using the old signed paper complaint has created the story and falsely implicated these petitioners in the case. As per alleged transaction petitioner No.2 and 3 were minors and they have not aware about any transactions and after lapse of more than 14 years the complainant came with this concocted story and falsely implicated in this case. Hence the story of prosecution is created and concocted one and as per the alleged agreement itself they have to approach civil court for specific performance. It is further submitted that complainant police are threatening the family member of petitioners each and every day are footing behind them. If the petitioners are apprehended by respondent police there are chances of harassment and humiliation by hands of police. They are having movables and immovables in their name, also they are having family and deep rooted in society and they are willing to abide by any conditions imposed by this court and willing to offer solvent surety to satisfaction of this court, they never abscond nor delay the court Crl.Misc.No.3053/2024 proceedings and undertakes not to hamper or tamper with prosecution witnesses. Hence, prayed for allowing bail application.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has filed detailed objections to

bail application along with memo of instruction given by Investigating Officer. In objections it is stated that investigation is still in progress and they are not entitled to be enlarged on bail. At this stage, if they are granted anticipatory bail, there is every possibility of they threatening the witnesses and destructing the evidence collected against them. Hence, prayed for rejection of bail petition.

5. Along with this anticipatory bail petition, application for

interim anticipatory bail is filed.

6. Heard the learned Advocate for Petitioners/A1 to A3 and

learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the bail application and documents.

7. The point that arise for consideration is :

Whether Anticipatory bail application filed by petitioners/ accused No.1 to 3 in Yelahanka New Town Police Station crime No.150/2024, deserves to be allowed ?

8. My finding to the above point is in the affirmative for the

following :- Crl.Misc.No.3053/2024 R E A S O N S

9. POINT No.1: Along with this bail application certified

copy of FIR in Yelahanka New Town P.S crime No. 150/2024, copy of agreement to 12.04.2010 are produced. Perusal of first information discloses that first informant agreed to purchase 12 guntas of land in Sy.No.47/7 of Ramagondanahalli village from petitioners 1 to 3, agreement of sale was entered on 19.06.2008. Sale consideration was agreed as Rs.30,00,000/- by way of cheque, Rs.3,00,000/- was paid on 19.06.2008. Rs.2,00,000/- was paid on 11.03.2011. Subsequently on 12.04.2010 wife of first informant agreed to purchase 1 acre 12 guntas of land in Sy.No.50/2 of Ramagondanahalli village from petitioners. Sale consideration was agreed as Rs.1,50,000/- and advance sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- was paid.

10. In first information it is stated that petitioners agreed to

execute sale deed after the said lands are denotified by BDA. It is further stated in first information that BDA acquired said lands in the year 2018, but petitioners did not return the advance amount received by them. The allegation made against petitioners is that they have cheated petitioners. It is necessary to note that first informant and his wife were desirous of purchasing property, they were aware about the lands being notified by BDA, they were well Crl.Misc.No.3053/2024 aware of the fact that the lands were subject matter of acquisition by BDA. Copy of agreement produced along with petition discloses that it has been purchased by one Srinivasaiah on 18.06.2008, but the agreement is dated.12.04.2010. In the said agreement there is a recital to the effect that though the stamp paper was purchased on 18.06.2008, agreement is entered into today. Facts narrated in the first information itself clearly disclose that there is a back drop of civil litigation. Remedy available to first informant is on the civil side. It appears that first informant is giving criminal texture to a dispute which is purely civil in nature. Criminal Law cannot be used as a tool for recovery of money. Further ingredients of the offence alleged against petitioners are to be proved in a full-fledged trial for the present, since investigation is yet to be completed, ends of justice would be served if suitable conditions are imposed upon petitioners. Further offences alleged against petitioners are a matter of record which cannot be destructed by petitioners. Considering all these facts, I answer above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

Anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by petitioners/ accused No.1 to 3 in Yelahanka New Town Police Station crime No. 150/2024, is hereby allowed. Petitioners/A-1 to 3 shall Crl.Misc.No.3053/2024 be enlarged on bail in Yelahanka New Town Police station Crime No.150/202465/2024 in the event of their arrest, subject to the following : CONDITIONS 1) Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs 50,000/- each with one surety for the like-sum. 2) Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 shall not leave the jurisdiction of court without prior permission of the court. 3) Petitioners/Accused No. 1 to 3 shall not threaten the witnesses or destruct the evidence collected against him. 4) Petitioners/Accused No. 1 to 3 shall not involve in any kind of offence henceforth. 5) Petitioners/Accused No. 1 to 3 shall appear before the learned Magistrate on the next date of hearing. 6) Petitioners/Accused No. 1 to 3 shall appear before the investigation officer on or before18.04.2024 and co operate with investigation in all respects. (Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed and typed by him, after corrections, pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 3rd day of April, 2024) (NARASHIMSA.M.V.) LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Crl.Misc.No.3053/2024