Crl.Misc.No.3005/2024 KABC010084972024 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 Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Dated: This the 2nd day of April 2024. : Crl.Misc.No.3005/2024: PETITIONER/ 1) Mr.Adhikeshvalu Naidu, ACCUSED :- S/o. Krishnama Naidu, Aged about 52 years, R/at No.51, 4th Floor, 36th Cross, 5th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 041. Also at :- No.147, SLV Sai Nilayam, 2nd Main, Suncity Layout, Kothnur Main Road, J.P.Nagar 8th Phase, Bangalore. (A2) 2) Mr.M.V.Ravishankar, S/o. Late M.L.V. Guptha, Aged about 57 years, R/at No.33, Shiva Krupa, 2nd Cross, 7th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 082. (A3) 3) Mr.M.V.Nataraj, S/o. M.L.Vishwanath Guptha, Aged about 59 years, R/at No.33, 2nd Cross, K.R.Road, 7th Block, Crl.Misc.No.3005/2024 Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 082. (A4) (Rep by Sri. Umesha N.- Advocate) V/s RESPONDENT : The State of Karnataka By : Jayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru. (Rep. by: Public Prosecutor)

ORDER

Accused No.2, 3 and 4 in Jayanagar Police Station Crime No.98/2024 has filed this application under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C for anticipatory bail. They are alleged to have committed offence punishable u/S 506, 120B, 406, 409, 420, 477A r/w. Sec.34 of IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case as forthcoming from first

information lodged by D.Gopinath are: (a) the complainant had invested amount with M/s.Suraksha Builders and Developers Pvt., Ltd., he is a shareholder and the complainant was Director of the said Company. During the year 2015 complainant had resigned from directorship of said company. The complainant had entered into a Joint Development Agreement dated.25.02.2011 with petitioner in order to construct apartment in the land measuring 5 acres 6.5 guntas of Begur village and it was agreed that the developer company is entitled for 66% and the Crl.Misc.No.3005/2024 complainant company M/s.Suraksha Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., are entitled for 34% profit. (b) The complainant on behalf of his company along with others had signed the said agreement. It is further alleged that the petitioner had started the said project work and with an ill intention he had not completed the said project work within 2014 and he had completed the said project during the year year 2021. During the year 2021 Occupancy Certificate has been issued by BBMP. The complainant is entitled for 113 flats in the said land out of 332 flats and prior to obtaining the Occupancy Certificate the accused persons had informed that they would get the flats registered after selection through dip (c) It is further alleged that during the year 2021 the accused persons had conspired with each other and in order to cheat the shareholders and had purchased the shares forcefully and had failed to get the flats registered in the name of complainant or in the name of other shareholders, had threatened the shareholders and had purchased the shares from them in the name of petitioner and his wife Smt.Pavani and petitioner had became the shareholder and now he is Director of M/s.Suraksha Builder and Developers Pvt. Ltd. It is further alleged in the complaint that during the year 2023 without Crl.Misc.No.3005/2024 obtaining consent from shareholders petitioner had sold the Flat bearing No.518 for a sum of Rs.1,06,83,000/- and he had got the same transferred to the account of M/s.Suraksha Builder & Developer Pvt. Ltd., and thereafter got transferred the amount to different accounts. (d) The Accused persons had not allotted the flats to the shareholders and got the same sold in favour of some third parties and had cheated the complainant and other shareholders and hence the complainant had requested respondent police to initiate legal action against accused persons and filed private complaint before IV ACMM Court, Bangalore.

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

have been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and have got valid and good tenable defense on their behalf. The petitioners have no knowledge nor reasonable belief nor apprehension of the alleged offences, but they have been falsely implicated in the above case at the instance of complainant. At no point of time petitioners have involved in alleged crime either directly or indirectly, but they have been falsely implicated in above case. The dispute between complainant and accused is purely civil in nature, they never committed and never Crl.Misc.No.3005/2024 indulged in alleged commission of offences, but complainant with malicious intention have implicated names of petitioners for the reasons best known to him. Due to pandemic situation the project was not completed within stipulated period of time as per agreement and it was continued an oral agreement under special circumstances that too the complainant and his wife were present in the board meeting, all the time of decision such being the case committing such offence is an incredible story of complaint. The petitioners submits that, because of his resignation in the year 2015 complainant could not able to get expected profit due to which he might have frustrated and might have lodged false complaint against the present officer bearers of company, just to harass and mend them for his monetary gain and nothing beyond it. From all the above facts circumstances it is crystal clear that, even there is no such ingredients for the offences, respondent police at instance of complainant have registered instant false case against innocent petitioners and unnecessarily dragged into court proceedings which is bad in law. The dispute between complainant and accused is purely civil in nature and there is no single material evidence to establish the guilt of accused persons, more over the present petitioners are also Ex-Directors , they have also resigned to their post on 10.07.2023 itself, such being the case there is Crl.Misc.No.3005/2024 involvement of present petitioners in the alleged commission of offences and they are no way related and are not responsible to alleged commission of offences, but they have been falsely implicated in the case and unnecessarily dragged into court proceedings. The alleged offences are not exclusively punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. The present petitioners submits that they are ready and willing to abide by any terms and conditions that may be imposed by this court and ready to furnish surety to the satisfaction of this court.

4. The Learned Public Prosecutor has filed detailed objections

to bail application along memo of instructions given by Investigating Officer. In objections the averments made in first information are reiterated. In memo of instructions given by investigating officer, investigation that has proceeded till 25.03.2024 is narrated.

5. it is stated that accused are not entitled to be enlarged on

bail, 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.

6. Heard the learned Advocate for petitioners and learned

Public Prosecutor. Crl.Misc.No.3005/2024

7. The point that arise for consideration is :

Whether Anticipatory bail application filed by accused No.2, 3 and 4 in Jayanagar Police Station crime No. 308/2023,deserves to be allowed ? My finding to the above point is in the affirmative for the following :- R E A S O N S

8. POINT No.1:- Along with this bail application, certified

copy of FIR in Jayanagar P.S. Crime No.98/2024, Copy of Police Notice dated.21.03.2024 issued to accused No.1, CIN details, Particulars of Directors, their date of appointment, Bank Account Statement of M/s. Suraksha Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Is filed.

9. Counsel for petitioner filed Certificate issued by

P.N.Pai & Co., Company Secretaries showing the shareholders pattern of M/s. Suraksha Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., copy of Certificate of Incorporation, Statement of total income of M/s. Suraksha Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., Photographs of the constructed Apartment are produced.

10. Sum and substance of the allegations made in first

information is to the effect that , first informant was a Director of M/s. Suraksha Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., the said company Crl.Misc.No.3005/2024 owned lands in Begur, company had entered into a Joint Development Agreement with Windsor Edifices Pvt. Ltd., accused No.1 M.Srinivasa Rao is Director of M/s.Windsor Edifices Pvt. Ltd.

11. As per Joint Development Agreement M/s.Windsor Edifices

Pvt. Ltd., was required to complete the project within 36 months, but the project was completed in the year 2021 only. It is further alleged that another Director by name Umapathi resigned as Director of M/s. Suraksha Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., as despite fault on the part of M/s. Windsor Edifices Pvt. Ltd. accused No.2 and 3 being Directors of M/s. Suraksha Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., did not take any action against A-1. Whatever legal action was proposed against accused No.1 was opposed by accused No.2 and 3. It is further alleged that a secret understanding or a tactical understanding exists between accused No.1 on one side, accused No.2 and 3 on the other side. It is alleged that without the knowledge of first informant and Umapathi, accused No.2 and 3 have received kick backs by way of cash from accused No.1.

12. It is alleged from out of 334 Flats constructed, as per the

shareholding ratio wife of first informant is entitled to super-built up area on 3103.13 Sq.ft., out of which by way of dip system, two flats bearing No.1505 and 1710 together measuring 2918.97 Sq.ft. Has Crl.Misc.No.3005/2024 been allotted/given to wife of first informant and balance area 184.16 Sq.ft. has been agreed to be given to first wife of first informant in commercial area of Apartment complex. It is necessary to note that first informant and his wife are aggrieved due to non-registration of sale deed in their favour

13. It clearly transpires that first informant is a shareholder in

M/s. Suraksha Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd.,. From the records produced by petitioner, it clearly transpires that accused No.1 is holding 86 % of shares, wife of first informant has 1.7% shares.

14. So far as the accused No.2 to 5 are concerned, they are

present Directors of M/s. Suraksha Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. It is further alleged that accused No.1 to 5 without knowledge of first informant are trying to waive-off penalty clause , which is part and parcel of Joint Development Agreement. Penalty Clause of Joint Development Agreement, stipulates that penalty is to be paid by Ms. Windsor Edifices Pvt. Ltd, for belated completion of project. It is further alleged that accused No.2 and 3 have clandestinely received payments/kick backs prior to commencement of Joint Development Agreement. It is alleged that accused No.23 are biased in favour of accused No.1. Crl.Misc.No.3005/2024

15. So far as accused No.2 to 4 are concerned they are the

present Directors of company, who are running the company. Accused No .5 Smt.Pavani is one of the Directors. The shareholding pattern described in the documents produced by petitioner discloses that accused No.5 is one of the Directors of company with effect from 5.06.1995. Accused No.5 is the wife of accused No.1.

16. Prima-facie,it reveals that documents on record

discloses that dispute is purely civil in nature. More so, it is within the Directors of M/s. Suraksha Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., it appears that criminal texture is being given to the dispute. The entire controversy revolves around the Joint Development Agreement and the construction up by M/s. Windsor Edifices Pvt. Ltd. It is to be not lost sight of that M/s, Windsor Edifices Pvt. Ltd., owns 86 % of shares in M/s.Suraksha Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and the Joint Development Agreement is said to have been entered between M/s. Suraksha Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Windsor Edifices Pvt. Ltd. It clearly transpires that M/s.Windsor Edifices Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Windsor Gardens Pvt. Ltd. appears to be sister concern. Be that as it may it is amply clear that there is clear background of civil litigation. It appears that attempt is being made to give criminal color to the entire controversy Crl.Misc.No.3005/2024 considering these aspects this court is of the clear opinion that imposing conditions Anticipatory Bail can be granted. Hence, 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.2, 3 and 4 are hereby allowed. Petitioners/A-2, 3 and 4 shall be enlarged on bail in Crime No.98/2024 of Jayanagar Police Station in the event of their arrest, subject to the following : CONDITIONS 1) Petitioners/accused No.2, 3 and 4 shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs 50,000/- each with one surety for the like-sum. 2) Petitioner/accused No.2, 3 and 4 shall not disturb the witness, threaten the witnesses, hamper the witness in any manner. 3) Petitioner/accused No. No.2, 3 and 4 shall appear before the investigating officer on or before 20.04.2024 and cooperate with investigation in all respects. 4) If any of the bail conditions are violated anticipatory bail stands canceled. (Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-II, transcribed and typed by him, after corrections, pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 2nd day of April, 2024.) Crl.Misc.No.3005/2024 (NARASHIMSA.M.V.) LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Crl.Misc.No.3005/2024 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, VIDE SEPARATE ORDER Anticipatory Bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by Petitioners/Accused No.2, 3 and 4 are hereby allowed. Petitioners/A-2, 3 and 4 shall be enlarged on bail in Crime No.98/2024 of Jayanagar Police Station in the event of their arrest, subject to the following : CONDITIONS 1) Petitioners/accused No.2, 3 and 4 shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs 50,000/- each with one surety for the like-sum. 2) Petitioner/accused No.2, 3 and 4 shall not disturb the witness, threaten the witnesses, hamper the witness in any manner. 3) Petitioner/accused No. No.2, 3 and 4 shall appear before the investigating officer on or before 20.04.2024 and co-operate with investigation in all respects. 4) If any of the bail conditions are violated anticipatory bail stands canceled. (NARASHIMSA.M.V.) LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.