K. UMA MAHESHWARA REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by Accused No.2 under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.91/2022 of Seshadripuram Police Station, Bengaluru City, registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 420 , 465 , 467 , 468 and 471 r/w 34 of IPC , pending on the file of 32nd ACMM Court, Bengaluru.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records.

(3.) As could be seen from the records, the present petitioner/Accused No.2 is a builder and he entered into an agreement with Accused No.1, who intended to purchase of Flat No.10 in Ground Floor of Pinnacle Apartment. Accused No.2 has also agreed to sell the flat and agreement of sale was entered between them on 27/10/2017 by availing loan of Rs.40,80,000.00 from the Complainant/Bank. With regard to the said sale agreement, subsequently, Rs.37,40,000.00 was paid to the Firm of Accused No.2 by the complainant/Bank and later, on 27/1/2017 the builders of the said apartment has given certificate with respect to the sale of the said flat to the Bank and Accused No.1 has executed the loan documents. Subsequently, on 27/4/2017 Accused No.1 has cancelled the agreement with Accused No.2 and in turn Accused No.2 has returned Rs.37,40,000.00 to Accused No.1, without obtaining NOC from the complainant/bank. Thereafter, Accused No.1 fled along with money. It is asserted by the complainant/Bank that the amount was paid by the bank on behalf of Accused No.1 to Accused No.2 and without insisting for NOC from the Complainant/Bank, Accused No.2 has returned amount to Accused No.1. It is further asserted that Accused No.2 could have intimated the complainant/Bank regarding cancellation of agreement with Accused No.1 and without doing so, Accused No.2 returned the amount to Accused No.1, without NOC from the complainant/Bank. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged.