IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.19/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI N. ANAND S/O SRI B. NAGAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO. 226/227/1, 8TH MAIN SRINIVASANAGAR BSK 1ST STAGE BENGALURU-560 050 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI C.R. GOPALASWAMY, ADV. ) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DODDABALLAPURA RURAL POLICE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.RACHAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.10.2018 PASSED BY IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DODDABALLAPURA, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT IN CRL.R.P.NO.10015/2018 AND THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT IN C.C.NO.876/2018 ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R 1. Petitioner, who is arraigned as accused no.4 in C.C.No.876/2018, filed an application under Sections 451 & 457 of Cr.P.C. before trial court for release of sale deed dated 22.01.2015 which has been seized during the course of investigation and the said application has been dismissed by the learned trial Judge by order dated 24.09.2018 (Annexure-A) on the ground that said document would be material evidence for the prosecution and if it is given to the custody of the applicant/accused, he may not produce the same during trial or he may destroy it. Said order which has been affirmed by the Revisional Court in Crl.R.P.No.10015/2018 by order dated 23.10.2018 is also under challenge.
2. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records it would clearly disclose that complainant Smt. Lakshmi Kanthamma alias Shanthamma has alleged that property bearing Survey no.49 and other survey numbers (more fully described in her complaint dated 27.12.2017) was the property belonging to her husband and his brother and on the demise of her husband, she has been residing along with her daughter at Goukanapalli, Ananthapur District and taking advantage of the same, her sister-in-law and her children have sold above said property in favour of the petitioner/applicant (accused no.4) under a registered sale deed dated 22.01.2015. Further, she has alleged in the complaint dated 27.12.2017 that in order to obtain the revenue records for sale of property, they have submitted that the complainant and her husband have expired and thereby fraudulently and by suppression of facts accused persons have obtained khatha and on such khatha being made out to their names, the property has been sold in favour of the petitioner (accused no.4) under the sale deed dated 22.01.2015. Even according to the prosecution, the alleged fraud is relating to declaration made before the revenue authorities for obtaining khatha. Thus, sale deed in question may not have much bearing on the prosecution case. Even otherwise, if the sale deed is ordered to be handed over to the custody of the petitioner (accused no.4), no harm or prejudice would be caused to the prosecution as it may not be a material evidence for the prosecution and at the most it may be a supplementary evidence to establish the fact that on the strength of purported and alleged khatha obtained fraudulently, the property having been sold to the petitioner. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for.
3. Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed. Orders dated 23.10.2018 and 24.09.2018 passed in Crl.R.P.No.10015/2018 and C.C.No.876/2018 are hereby set aside and the application filed under Section 451 & 457 of CPC is hereby allowed subject to the following conditions:
i) Petitioner shall execute an indemnity bond and shall submit the original sale deed dated 22.01.2015 as and when called upon by the learned trial Judge;
ii) During the pendency of the proceedings before the trial court, petitioner shall not deposit the said original title deeds by way of security or create equitable mortgage with any financial institution without express permission from the Court;
iii) Petitioner shall not alter, change or erase any of the entries found in the said sale deed;
iv) On substitution of the sale deed, the original sale deed dated 22.01.2015 is ordered to be returned to the petitioner (accused no.4).
Sd/- JUDGE hkh.