Back
2022 Supreme(Kar) 87
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P. SANDESH, J.
Sri Nanjappa S/o Late Narayanappa - Appellant
Versus
State By Chikkajala Police Station – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.1653 of 2022
Decided on : 24-03-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SMT. MANDAVI PANDEY, FOR SRI MANJUNATHA M, ADVOCATE)
For the Respondent: SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP
Point of Law : Rule 6(2) provides provision for filing vakalath or memo of appearance in view of change of trend in committing the fraud on Court filing of memo of appearance to be avoided in case of petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 438 – Quash of criminal Proceeding – Praying this Court to enlarge petitioner on bail in event of his arrest in respect – Allegation in complaint that complainant had stated that his mother had purchased this property and thereafter, she was in possession of same and in view of order passed in very said property was re-granted in favour of mother of complainant – Para 22.
Finding of the court: Though case was registered long back making an allegation of fraud, impersonation, forgery, Investigating Officer has not taken any steps either to apprehend petitioner or investigate matter – Instead of allowed petitioner to approach different forums i.e., this Court, District and Sessions Court and District and Sessions Court and had knowledge of same and till date even not investigated matter and allowed him to play fraud on the Courts – Hence, it shows that he is also hand in glove with petitioner – Hence, it is appropriate to direct the Director General of Police to change Investigating Officer and appoint new Investigating Officer for investigation – Trend is filing more number of petitions in same Court and observe trend of Court and filing of not pressing petition before Court are increasing and it is necessary to give certain directions to registry to evolve mechanism and though criminal rules of practice Rule 6(2) provides provision for filing or memo of appearance in view of change of trend in committing fraud on Court filing of memo of appearance to be avoided in case of petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C since accused/petitioner will not be in custody.
Results: Petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.136/2021 registered by the Chikkajala Police Station, Devanahalli, for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that this petitioner who had been arraigned as accused No.1 had indulged in creation of documents in order to make wrongful gain along with accused Nos.2 and 3 claiming that accused Nos.2 and 3 are the original owners of the property bearing Sy.No.3, new No.3/253, to the extent of 2 acres 30 guntas of the land at Navarathna Agrahara, Jala hobli, Yelahanka taluk, Bengaluru North. The allegation in the complaint that the complainant had stated that his mother had purchased this property on 04.05.1981 and thereafter, she was in possession of the same and in view of the order passed in LRF (INA) 246/80-81, 243/80-81, 242/80-81, 369/81-82, 379/81-82, the very said property was re-granted in favour of the mother of the complainant. The mother of the complainant passed away in the year 2015 and regarding entries pertaining to the year 2011 to 2014 in RTC, the matter was pending with the Special Deputy Commissioner and after the death of the mother, the khatha was not transferred in favour of any other persons. It is also alleged in the complaint that on 28.10.2021, some unknown persons were moving around the said property and suspecting the same, enquired and came to know that there was a sale agreement in favour of M/s.Blue jay Enterprises Private Limited and when the said fact came to know to the knowledge of his brothers and sisters had been to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru on 11.11.2021 and came to know that this petitioner, even though the mother of the complainant was passed away in the year 2015, indulged in creation of the documents and created fictitious persons i.e., one Akkayamma and also in the name of the complainant, a sale agreement was executed in favour of M/s.Blue jay Enterprises Private Limited on 24.10.2019 and hence the complaint was lodged stating that the petitioner as well as other accused persons have collected the amount of Rs.3,50,00,000/-from the prospective purchaser. Hence, requested to take action against the persons who have indulged in creation of the documents and made an attempt to make wrongful gain i.e., against this petitioner and also the other two fictitious persons i.e., Akkayamma and Anjanappa. Based on the complaint, the case was registered on 15.11.2021 in Cr.No.136/2021 of Chikkajala Police Station, Devanahalli.
4. After the registration of the case, the petitioner had approached the jurisdictional District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli seeking an anticipatory bail in Crl.Mis.No.15236/2021 and having taken note of the contents of the complaint as well as the gravity of the offences, the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District sitting at Devanahalli rejected the anticipatory bail on 01.12.2021. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.9705/2021 in respect of the very same crime for the aforesaid offences, but the said fact is not stated in the present petition and suppressed the same. It is also important to note that when the said petition came up before this Court on 12.01.2022, the counsel for the petitioner sought time on the ground of ill-health and hence, this Court adjourned the matter to 19.01.2022. On 19.01.2022, the counsel on record appeared through video conference and sought permission to dismiss the same as withdrawn. Accordingly, this Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn in view of
