IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.547 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
1. Madhu (A-1) S/o Krishnamurthy Aged about 35 years Agriculturist R/at Kabbala Village Channagiri Taluk Davanagere Dist – 577 2013 2. Pruthvikrishna (A-2) S/o Venkateshwara Rao Aged about 27 years Agriculturist R/at Bullapura Camp Kurki Post Davanagere Taluk and Davanagere District – 577 514 ... Petitioners (By Sri. Gopalakrishnamurthy C., Advocate) AND:
State by Basavapatna Police Station Davanagere Represented by its SPP High Court Complex Bengaluru – 560 001. ... Respondent (By Sri. M. Divakar Maddur, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.174/2018 of Basavapatna Police Station, Davanagere for the offence punishable under Section 420, 504, 506 of IPC and under Section 39 of Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 and under Section 3 and 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by petitioner Nos.1 and 2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.174/2018 of Basavapatna Police Station, Davanagere for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 504, 506 of IPC and under Section 39 of Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 and under Section 3 and 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant has alleged against the petitioners that he was purchasing the chemicals and pesticides to his land from accused No.1 and he used to make payment but accused No.1 was not giving any receipt for having purchased the pesticides. The complainant was in due of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the purchase of pesticides. He made a payment of Rs.2,00,000/- but accused No.1 avoided to give receipt for having paid the said amount and for discharging the remaining amount, the complainant sold his property and paid the balance of Rs.1,50,000/- including interest. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 came near the house of the complainant and offered him to become a member of chit business of 20 members with a premium of Rs.10,000/- once in six months and any one of 20 members can take the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as such the member can give bank cheque for security. The complainant has given two blank cheques drawn on State Bank of Mysuru to accused No.1 and received Rs.80,000/- on 01.01.2012 and once in six months he had been paying premium amount of Rs.10,000/-, the petitioner-accused No.1 submitted the said cheques for encashment and they were dishonored due to ‘insufficient funds’. Hence, the complainant made enquire with accused No.1 and he replied that there is an amount of Rs.5,60,200/- due towards the purchase of pesticides and he also abused him in a filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences in case police complaint lodged against them. Hence, the accused persons cheated the complainant by producing the cheques for encashment.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner-accused No.1 dealing with the fertilizer business and he has purchased the fertilizer and not paid the amount and issued cheques, the same came to be dishonored. In order to avoid the same; a false complaint has been registered.
5. It is further submitted that Section 15 of the Money Lenders Act, 1961 does not empower the officials or any other officers to enter premises. It is only the Registrar or Assistant Registrar or any Officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf may enter into the premises of the petitioners to require the production of records or documents and they are the only persons, who are having power to enter, inspect and seize of documents. In this behalf no such act have been taken and the same has been challenged before this Court in Criminal Petition No.536/2019 wherein, the order dated 08.02.2019, the stay has been granted regarding the further proceedings. He further submitted that there is a delay of 9 months in giving the complaint. If the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed on them by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 on bail.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that petitioner-accused No.1 has grabbed the said money and now he is contending that he is dealing with fertilizer business and an amount of Rs.5,60,200/- is due from the complainant. He further submitted that there is a prima facie material as against the petitioners- accused Nos.1 and 2 for having committed the alleged offence. The presence of petitioner-accused Nos.1 and 2 is very much necessary for the purpose of investigation and if petitioner-accused Nos.1 and 2 are enlarged on bail, they may abscond and was not available for investigation. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and the High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
8. I am conscious of the fact that as per Section 15 of the Money Lenders Act, 1961, it is only the Registrar or Assistant Registrar or any Officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf may enter into the premises of the petitioners to require the production of records or documents and they are the only persons, who are having power to enter, inspect and seize of documents. It should be appreciated only at the time of trial but not at preliminary stage. It is not the duty of this Court that while dealing with the bail application to consider those aspects, this Court has to consider only the gravity of offence and the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner-accused No.1 is dealing with fertilizer business and he is a permanent resident of Davanagere. Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances, I feel that by imposing some stringent conditions if the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are released on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
9. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is allowed.
Petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2 are enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.174/2018 of Basavapatna Police Station, Davanagere District for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 504, 506 of IPC and under Section 39 of Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 and under Section 3 and 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004. Petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail subject to the following conditions:-
1. Each of the petitioner-accused Nos.1 and 2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
2. They shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from today.
3. They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner directly or indirectly.
4. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned Court without prior permission.
5. They shall mark their attendance once in 15 days between 10.00 a.m to 5.00 p.m, before the jurisdictional Police for a period of six months.
6. They shall co-operate with the investigation.
7. They shall not indulge in similar type of criminal activities.
In view of disposal of the above petition, I.A.No.1/2019 for interim bail does not survive for consideration and the same is also disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE NR/-