P. PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri. Karmendra Singh, learned Counsel for petitioner, Shri.Rohith B.J., learned HCGP for respondent No.1 - State and Shri.Venkatesh R.Bhagat, learned Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3.

(2.) This bail application made under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure is consequent to the order dated 10.07.2020 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.684/2020 by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru granting anticipatory bail to the wife of the petitioner, while rejecting the application of the petitioner.

(3.) The case of the private complainants respondents No. 2 and 3 is that the petitioner and his wife entered into an 'Agreement of sale' in respect of an immovable property for a sum of Rs. 75 lakhs. The 'Agreement of sale' was duly registered. It is stated that as per the Sale Agreement, the petitioner and his wife had agreed not to create any encumbrance over the property in question. The petitioner had also collected Rs. 50 lakhs from the complainants under the 'Agreement of sale'. The agreement holders i.e., respondents No. 2 and 3 being aggrieved of the fact that the petitioner did not execute the sale deed in their favour, filed a suit in O.S. No.89/2016 before the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge at Mysuru seeking relief of specific performance. The said suit, according to the petitioner ended in a compromise on 31.03.2016 and as per the compromise, the petitioner and his wife were required to collect the balance sum of Rs. 25 lakhs and execute the sale deed in favour of respondents No. 2 and 3. However, it is alleged that in derogation of the compromise, the petitioner approached the Sub-Registrar, Mysuru South, Mysuru and obtained a 'Nil' Encumbrance Certificate which did not show the execution of the 'Agreement of sale'.