Karnataka High Court

Smt C V Sumana vs State Of Karnataka on 2 August, 2022

Bench: K.Natarajan

                         1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

                     BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

         CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6459/2022

BETWEEN:-

1.   SMT. C.V. SUMANA,
     W/O. DILBAG SINGH,
     AGED ABOUT: 50 YEARS,
     OCC: ADDITIONAL SUB-REGISTRAR,
     MAHADEVAPURA,
     BENGALURU

     R/AT: 1130/1131,
     BEHIND DEE ENCLAVE,
     SAHAKARANAGAR POST,
     YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
     BENGALURU-560 092

2.   SRI KRISHNA S. NAIK,
     S/O. LATE SHIVAHARI N. NAIK,
     AGED ABOUT: 58 YEARS,
     OCC: SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR,
     BANASAVADI,
     BENGALURU

     R/AT: 427, "SRI NILAYA",
     12TH 'A' MAIN, 'A' SECTOR,
                             2

      YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
      BENGALURU-560 064
                                 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K.S. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND

STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY K.R. PURAM POLICE STATION,
WHITEFIELD SUB-DIVISION,
BENGALURU CITY,
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001
                                 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., ADVOCATE)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS
ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.
NO.247/2022 REGISTERED BY K.R. PURAM POLICE
STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 465, 468, 471, 420, 120(B) R/W
SECTION 34 OF IPC, NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF X
ADDL.C.M.M., MAYO HALL, BENGALURU.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS ON THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

This petition is filed by accused Nos.3 and 4 under

Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for granting anticipatory bail in

Crime No.247/2022 registered by the respondent Police

Station for the offences punishable under Sections 465,

468, 471, 420, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. Heard the arguments of Sri Praveen Kumar, learned

counsel for the petitioners and Sri Krishna Kumar, learned

HCGP for the respondent - State and perused the records.

3. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that Sri

Ritesh Kumar, Assistant Director of Enforcement

Directorate (for short 'ED') filed a complaint to the

Wilsongarden Police on 10.06.2022 at 5.30 p.m., later the

same was transferred to respondent - K.R. Puram Police

Station and registered as Crime No.247/2022, wherein it is

alleged that the ED attached a residential property bearing

Site No.3, Khatha No.28/45/1, New Katha No.742 situated

a Varanazi @ Jinkethimmanahalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli,

held in the name of accused No.1 - John Michael, vide

Provisional Attachment Order (POA) bearing No.09/2014

dated 06.08.2014 under Section 5 of Provisions of Money

Laundering Act, 2002 (for short 'PMLA') and the same was

intimated to the K.R.Puram Sub-Registrar Office and made

encumbrance of the property attached by the ED;

subsequently a further attachment was intimated by the

ED on 26.11.2014. Subsequently, accused Nos.1 and 2

said to have sold the said property to accused Nos.5 and 6

and the petitioners herein being the Additional Sub-

Registrar and Senior Sub-Registrar of K.R. Puram Sub-

property and ignoring the attachment made by the ED, has

allowed the accused No.1 to sell the property. Thereby the

ED requested the Police to investigate the matter. The

petitioners being the Sub-Registrars apprehending their

arrest in the hands of K.R. Puram Police, approached the

Sessions Court for granting bail but the same was

rejected. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that

petitioner No.1 was the Additional Sub-Registrar of K.R.

Puram Sub-Register Office at the time of registration of the

document and without knowledge of the attachment of the

property by the ED, she executed the same in favour of

accused Nos.5 and 6 in the Sale Deed made by accused

Nos.1 and 2, since the attachment was not mentioned in

the book of Court proceedings. Petitioner No.2 - accused

No.4 was not at all present there at the time of registration

on 10.07.2020, as he was transferred to Gandhi Nagar

Sub-Registrar Office and he was relieved from the service

of K.R. Puram Sub-Register Office on 30.06.2020. He

submits that the petitioners cannot refuse the registration

of the document and execution of Sale Deed for any other

reasons, which are not listed under the Rule 171 of

Karnataka Registration Rules 1965. Since the petitioners

are Sub-Registrars, there is no question of absconding,

hence, he prayed for grant of bail.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

for the respondent - State objected the bail petition and

contended that the petitioners purposefully allowed the

accused Nos.1 and 2 to sell the property, even though the

ED attached the said property and it was intimated to the

Sub-Register Office and it was mentioned in the Court

Book and also made entry in the computer. Therefore, it

cannot be said that they did not have knowledge of

attachment. He submits that the presence of petitioners is

required for custodial interrogation, hence, prayed for

dismissal of the bail petition.

6. Upon considering the arguments and on perusal of

the records, admittedly, petitioner No.2 was not a Sub-

when the said document was executed by accused Nos.1

and 2 by selling the property attached by the ED in favour

of accused Nos.5 and 6, as he was transferred to Sub-

Smt. C.V. Sumana is Additional Sub-Register who

registered the document. The Senior Sub-Register has

given a statement to the Assistant Director of Register

stating and justifying that he cannot refuse to register in

view of the judgment passed by the High Court as well as

Rule 171 of the Karnataka Registration Rules. It is

contended that since the entry was not made in the

computer by the Computer Operator, therefore, without

the knowledge of attachment petitioner No.1 executed the

Sale Deed and they are pleading bonafide. The document

produced by the Sub-Registrar Office also reveals that the

enquiry was made in the Sub-Register Office to find out

where the mistake occurred regarding not making entry of

ED attachment and why it was not brought to the notice of

the Sub-Registrar before registering the document.

Considering all these facts, of course, the petitioners are

Sub-Registers who are only the executing authorities and

the entire process of registration would be taken by the

officials of the Sub-Register Office including the case

workers and the Data Entry Operators, who have to bring

to the notice of the Sub-Registrar about the attachment

made either by the Court or any other authorities.

Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be presumed that the

petitioners have intentionally executed the document by

ignoring the ED attachment, which was already intimated

by the ED long back in the year 2014. Therefore, it is the

matter required to be investigated by the Police in detail

by enquiring with the officials of the Sub-Register to find

out the truth. At this stage it cannot be said that the

petitioners have intentionally executed the Sale Deed.

Without detail investigation, it cannot be said that it is the

mistake committed by the petitioners. The entire case is

based on the documentary evidence. Therefore, by

imposing stringent conditions if the petitioners are

enlarged on bail no prejudice would be caused to the case

of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following order:

Order

The Criminal Petition is allowed.

The respondent - Police are directed to release the

petitioners-accused Nos. 3 and 4 on bail in the event of

their arrest Crime No.247/2022 registered by the

respondent Police Station for the offences punishable

under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 120B read with

Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions;

(i) Petitioners shall execute personal bonds for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

(ii) Petitioners shall surrender themselves within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order;


   (iii)    Petitioners shall not directly or indirectly
            tamper    with     any       of   the    prosecution
            witnesses;


   (iv)     Petitioners shall be deemed to be in

custody for the purpose of recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

(v) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for investigation.

(vi) If any of the conditions is violated, the prosecution is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sbs*