Dr G V Palaksha vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 65 Kant

                           1


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8668 OF 2021

BETWEEN

DR G V PALAKSHA
S/O G.T. VENKATA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.1141
4TH FLOOR, 21ST CROSS
HSR LAYOUT SECTOR - 3
BENGALURU - 560 102.                        ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI KIRAN S. JAVALI, SENIOR ADVOCATE
 FOR SRI BHARATH M, ADVOCATE)

AND

STATE OF KARNATAKA
STATION HOUSE OFFICER
SIDDAPURA POLICE STATION
BANGALORE - 560011
REP BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU.                                 ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP
 SRI. S. SRIRANGA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
 SRI. S. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR DEFACTO COMPLAINANT)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN CR.NO.131/2021 OF SIDDAPURA P.S., BENGALURU
                                   2


CITY FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
506,504, 34,120-B,406 AND 420 OF IPC.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21.12.2021 THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:


                              ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner who is referred

as accused Nos.3 and 4 (being Partner and Managing

Partner of the firm) under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for

granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.131/2021 registered

by Siddapura Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences

punishable under Sections 506, 34, 504, 120B, 406, 420 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

2. Heard the arguments of Sri Kiran S. Javali,

learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner

counsel, learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent-State and Sri S.Sriranga, Senior counsel

appearing for the respondent counsel.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the

complainant-Jayaram has filed a complaint to the Police on

14.08.2021 alleging that the complainant was a partner of

the firm M/s. GTV Estates and the said GTV Estates agreed

to repay the amount to the outstanding creditors of

another firm wherein this petitioner was a partner in M/s

GTV Reddy and Sons. The petitioner is the Doctor and he

is also the Managing partner of M/s. GTV Reddy and Sons

and he is responsible for all the actions of the firm. The

petitioner has invested Rs.4,51,09,098/- in GTV Estates

being 20% of the loan amount of Rs.22,55,45,190/-

received by M/s.GTV Reddy and sons from Fullerton India

Credit Private Limited. In lieu of the amount payable to the

petitioner upon his retirement from GTV Estates, the 2 nd

complainant had received an amount of Rs.8,50,00,000/-.

The petitioner being the Managing partner has violated the

terms of MOU and misused the settlement amount

received by him for his personal purposes. It is further

alleged that the petitioner did not disclose the suit in

O.S.No.7109/2014 and agreement of sale with the 1 st

complainant-Jayaram for a site measuring 40x60 feet and

received Rs.3,00,000/- as advance sale consideration but

failed to execute the sale deed. Thereby, the accused

caused loss to the complainant and the petitioner was

being the Managing Partner has shown a loan balance each

of Rs.7,80,99,543.59 to the account of other partners of

M/s. GTV Reddy and sons, thereby the petitioner has

cheated the complainant. Hence, prayed for taking action.

After registering the case, the Police are making hectic

efforts to arrest this petitioner. Hence, he has approached

the Sessions Judge for grant of anticipatory bail which

came to be rejected. Hence, he is before this court.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has

contended that the dispute between the petitioner and

complainant is purely civil in nature and the civil dispute is

converted into criminal case. The Police without making

preliminary enquiry registered a false case against the

petitioner. The Co-accused Nos.1 and 2 were granted

anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge in

Crl.Misc.No.9010/2021 dated 30.10.2021. Therefore, this

petitioner is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. A

commercial suit is also filed and pending before the

Commercial Court in Comm. O.S.No.273/2020. Therefore,

prayed for granting bail.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader seriously objected the bail petition and Sri Sriranga

learned Senior counsel appearing for the defacto-

complainant also filed written submissions contending that

the complainant, this petitioner and his brother

G.V.Chandrashekar entered into an agreement of sale of

land in survey Nos.234/2, 233/1 and 233/2 of Gunjur

Village for a sum of Rs.15,58,00,000/- on 16.09.2016 and

further alleged that the 2nd complainant along with one

Nagaraj Reddy and accused No.1 were all entered into the

partnership firm in the name of GTV Estates and

thereafter, the partner of M/s. GTV Reddy and sons have

availed loan from Fullerton India Credit Private Limited and

invested the said amount in GTV Estates and M/s. GTV

Reddy and sons availed loan of Rs.3,60,00,000/- from

Vijaya Bank and transferred the said amount to the

complainant as loan. The complainants agreed to repay the

loan amount. In the meanwhile, Nagaraj Reddy passed

away and his wife Sudha Nagaraj was inducted as partner

and later the accused No.1- G.V.Chandrashekar retired

from the firm and his son Manish was inducted as a

partner on 02.02.2016 and on 24.04.2017, the petitioner

retired from the firm and thereafter, the said Sudha

Nagaraj also retired from the firm. A MOU was entered

into between the partners on 10.05.2017. The petitioner's

brother agreed to repay the loan availed from Vijaya Bank

and at the time of retirement of the petitioner, the share of

the petitioner was Rs.7,25,00,000/- and the 2nd

complainant paid Rs.50,00,000/- by D.D drawn in HDFC

Bank and for the remaining amount of Rs.6,75,00,000/- it

was agreed that the complainants would cancel the sale

agreement executed by the petitioner's brother in respect

of land in survey No.232/2 of Gunjur Village. Accordingly,

a cancellation deed was executed on 10.05.2017 and

subsequently, the land was sold to Mysore Projects Private

Limited for Rs.18,70,89,200/-. The petitioner and his

brother had received Rs.8,00,00,000/- each. Thereby, the

petitioner has received Rs.8,50,00,000/- instead of

Rs.7,25,00,000/- receivable by him. Thereby, the

petitioner caused loss to the complainant. The petitioner

and his family members along with the partners of GTV

Estates entered into an MOU on 10.5.2017 wherein they

have categorically stated that all the dues from GTV

Estates have been received and this petitioner also signed

as a Managing Partner of GTV Estates, M/s. GTV Reddy

and sons. The petitioner's total investment of the firm is

3,00,00,000/- and share of the petitioner in the loan

obtained from Fullerton India was 20%. But the petitioner

received Rs.8,50,00,000/- under the MOU. The petitioner

also entered into an agreement of sale in respect of site

measuring 60 x 40 and received 3,00,000/- as advance by

suppressing the suit in O.S.No.7109/2014 and cheated the

complainant. The petitioner agreed to pay the loan availed

from the Vijaya Bank and his brother agreed to pay his

share of loan obtained from Fullerton India Private Limited,

on that ground the deed was cancelled. As per the MOU

between the partners, accused No.1 is liable to pay

Rs.10,36,63.617/- to M/s. GTV Reddy and sons but they

are avoiding to make payments. The complainant and his

brother involved in various offences in Crime

Nos.172/2021, 162/2021, 194/2020, 40/2021, 68/2021,

20/2021, 22/2021 and 39/2021. Therefore, prayed for

rejecting the bail petition.

6. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of

records which reveals that the complainant himself has

filed various complaint against the petitioner and his

brother. The fact of the case in nut shell is that the

petitioner and complainant were partners of M/s.GTV

Reddy and sons and they invested money. Subsequently,

accused No.1 retired from the firm and his wife was

inducted as partner. Subsequently his son was also

inducted as partner where the petitioner is the Managing

Partner. They have availed the loan from the Fullerton

India Credit Pvt. Ltd. and also Vijaya Bank and at the time

of retirement, there was a memorandum of agreement

entered into between the outgoing partners and the

complainant. They agreed to repay the loans in respect of

their share but did not repay the same. The accused also

said to have been received Rs.50,00,000/- from the

complainant's wife by demand draft and subsequently by

entering into an agreement, accused is said to have been

received Rs.8,00,00,000/- but, in fact, the petitioner is

entitled for Rs.7,25,00,000/- from the firm and he has

received excess amount. Subsequently, the petitioner and

his brother have not paid their share of loan and also

trying to make the complainant payable the above said

loans. Thereby they misappropriated the amount and also

cheated the complainant. It is also further contended the

accused by suppressing the civil suit pending in respect of

land in Sy.No.232/2 has entered into an agreement of sale

in respect of site measuring 60 x 40 and received the

advance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- were all a civil dispute

between the parties and the complainant has filed this

complaint against the petitioner. Inspite of filing of

commercial suit by the son of accused No.2 (son of

accused No.1) against the GTV Estates, the complainant

and his wife and other partners, the parties are litigating

before the civil court/commercial court. It appears that

the dispute between the parties is in respect of agreement

of sale and dispute between the partners of the firm is in

respect of settlement of a retired partner and the

repayment of loan/ liability towards the loan obtained from

the bank / private financial institutions which reveals that

it is purely civil in nature but the complainant trying to file

a criminal complaint against the petitioner. As it is well

settled that when a civil suit is converted to criminal case,

the Court is required to consider the same and grant

anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc. vs.

State of Punjab, wherein life of liberty of citizen is

guaranteed and court is required to safeguard the rights of

the parties. The mother-in-law of the complainant also

filed another complaint against accused No.1 in crime

NO.162/2021 which is also under consideration before this

Court. The accused Nos.1 and 2 already granted

anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge in

Crl.Misc.No.9010/2021 dated 30.10.2021. Such being the

case, when the offence is not punishable with death or

imprisonment of life and triable by Magistrate, this

petitioner is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

The apprehension of the prosecution may be safeguarded

by imposing certain conditions, if bail is granted no

prejudice is caused to the prosecution. Hence, the

following:

ORDER

Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed.

The respondent/Siddapura/Basavanagudi Police is

directed to release the petitioner/accused No.3 and 4 on

bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.131/2021

registered by Siddapura Police for the offences

punishable under Sections 504, 506, 120(B), 406, 420

read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following

conditions:

(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh

only) each (Accused No.3 for himself and on behalf of the firm as accused No.4) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

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

(iii) Petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences strictly;

(iv) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/ indirectly;

(v) Petitioner shall be deemed custody for the purpose of any recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872;

(vi) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Monday, Wednesday and Friday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., for a period of one month and thereafter, he shall appear once in a week on every Monday till filing of the charge-sheet.

If any of the conditions are violated, then the

prosecution/defacto complainant is at liberty to file

application for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE

GBB