Karnataka High Court
P Devanna S/O Ganganna vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 January, 2022
Bench: Mohammad Nawazpresided Bymnj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION No.100066/2022
BETWEEN:
P DEVANNA S/O GANGANNA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. DOOR NO.18/1,
GANESH TEMPLE ROAD,
BRUCEPET, BALLARI. ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SHIVAKUMAR S.BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD,
THROUGH BRUCEPET POLICE STATION,
BALLARI, DIST. BALLARI. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI RAMESH B.CHIGARI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITION AND
FURTHER ORDER THAT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED BE RELEASED
ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL REGISTERED BY BRUCEPET POLICE IN
CRIME NO.17/2021 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 419
AND 420 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
Petitioner has preferred this petition under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in
Crime No.17/2021 of Brucepet Police Station,
Ballari, registered for offence punishable under
Sections 419 and 420 of IPC.
2. Heard both side and perused the material
on record.
3. A private complaint was filed by one
Smt. Manjula D., under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.
against the petitioner herein, alleging offence
punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC,
before the Court of I Additional Civil Judge and
JMFC, Ballari. The said complaint was referred to
police and aforementioned case was registered
against the petitioner.
4. It is alleged that the petitioner induced
the complainant to purchase a property bearing Door
No.107/1,2,3,4 and 5 situated at Ward No.5, T
No.37/A, 38/A, 39/A Tank Bund road, Ballari, for a
sum of Rs.20 Lakhs and entered into an agreement
on 19.05.2009 and received a part payment of Rs.19
lakhs. The said agreement of sale was registered in
the office of Sub-Registrar, Ballari, on 20.05.2009
and six months was fixed for execution of sale deed.
Since, the petitioner did not come forward to
execute the sale deed, a legal notice was issued and
as he failed to execute the sale deed in her favour,
she filed a suit in O.S.16/2010 before the Court of
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ballari, for enforcement
of agreement, which was decreed on 28.02.2015 and
the petitioner was directed to execute the sale deed
within 90 days from the date of judgment. Since the
petitioner did not honour the decree, she filed
Execution Case No.150/2015 and sought possession
of the property. At that time, one K.Venkat Rao
claimed that he has purchased the said property
from one Sri K.Chandra Shekar Gupta. The said
K.Venkat Rao filed an application claiming title over
the property stating that petitioner has executed an
agreement of sale in favour of Sri Chandra Shekar
Gupta on 20.05.2000, who inturn filed a suit in O.S.
No.47/2012 before Senior Civil Judge, Ballari for
enforcement of agreement and in the said suit,
petitioner entered into a compromise with the said
Sri Chandra Shekar Gupta and later on 19.07.2013,
he executed the sale deed in his favour, who inturn
sold the property in question to him under a
registered sale deed dated 03.09.2013.
5. The allegations are that suppressing all
these facts, the petitioner induced the complainant
to pay a sum of Rs.19 Lakhs and executed the
agreement for sale and thereby cheated her.
6. It is the contention of learned counsel for
petitioner that the entire allegations are civil in
nature and infact the police have issued an
endorsement to the complainant stating that the
dispute is civil in nature. However, now case has
been registered against the petitioner on the basis
of private complaint. He submits that the petitioner
is ready to return the entire amount received from
the complainant and he will give an undertaking to
that effect.
7. The offence alleged is not punishable with
death or imprisonment for life. Whether there was
intention for the petitioner to cheat the complainant
and whether the ingredients of the offence alleged
are made out or not, have to be established during
trial. Petitioner has undertaken to co-operate with
the investigation and appear before the trial Court
regularly. Considering the facts and circumstances
of the case and also keeping in view the submission
made by the learned counsel for petitioner, without
expressing any view on the merits of the case, relief
sought by the petitioner can be granted.
8. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) Petition is allowed,
ii) In the event of arrest of petitioner in
Cr.No.17 of 2021 of Brucepet police
station, Ballari, registered for offences
punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of
IPC, he shall be released subject to
following conditions:
a) Petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer within a period
of 10 days from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order and shall execute
a personal bond in a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
only) with one surety for likesum,
b) Petitioner shall furnish proof of his
residential address and shall inform
the Investigating Officer/ Court if
there is any change in the address,
c) Petitioner shall mark his attendance
at the jurisdictional Police Station on
every Saturday or Monday between
10:00 am and 2:00 pm till conclusion
of Investigation,
d) Petitioner shall co-operate with the
investigation of the case,
e) Petitioner shall not tamper with the
prosecution witnesses either directly
or indirectly,
f) Petitioner shall appear regularly
before the trial Court,
g) Petitioner shall not leave the
jurisdiction of the trial Court without
prior permission of the learned trial
Judge.
(Sd/-)
JUDGE
Jm/Ssp/-
