Y. MAHEEDAR REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter having been heard at length, it was for want of time the matter was postponed from time to time for dictating the orders. Therefore, even in the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this order is being dictated.

(2.) The petitioner is said to be arrayed as accused No. 2 in his capacity as the Managing Director of accused No. 1 - Company in his individual capacity in a pending case in C.C.No. 495/2016 on the file of the IV Addl. CMM, Bengaluru. The respondent No. 2 is said to have filed a complaint before the said court alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 420 and 421 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC' , for brevity). He had sought for reference of the complaint to the respondent No. 1 for investigation, which was declined by an order dated 29.11.2014 and the matter was posted for recording of his sworn statement and the evidence of the witnesses. Statement of the witnesses were recorded and cognizance was taken of the offences on 09.11.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 196, 198, 199, 419, 420, 421, 465, 468, 471 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC. It was then transferred to the Court below on the ground of jurisdiction and the case was registered in C.C.No. 495/2016. Summons was then issued to the present petitioner as well as other accused. The petitioner had therefore sought for an anticipatory bail which was rejected by an order dated 11.11.2016. It is claimed that the entire allegations in the complaint are against accused No. 4 who had offered certain property as collateral security for the loan availed by the petitioner and his company and the said accused No. 4 had executed a memorandum of deposit of Title Deeds on 19.12012 and had made declarations and had also issued an indemnity for and on behalf of the petitioner's Company. It is stated that in so far as the land borrowed by the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 - Housing Development Corporation had filed a suit for recovery in O.S.No.8833/2014 and the same is said to be pending before the City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. The petitioner is said to have appeared and filed his written statement. It is claimed that the entire grievance of the respondent No. 2 is that the documents furnished as collateral security are found to be defective and therefore the Bank has initiated the criminal prosecution alleging fraud and forgery and it is thereafter that the Magistrate has recorded the sworn statements and taken cognizance and process has been issued against the present petitioner and therefore the present proceedings.

(3.) The respondent has entered appearance and has filed Statement of Objections to contend that the loan transaction and the execution of collateral security in favour of respondent No. 2 is not in dispute. The petitioner was the Managing Director of M/s. Tempus Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. and was authorised by the Board of Directors to avail a loan of Rs. 15 Crore for the purpose of working capital needs for completion of construction of International Tech Parks, Bengaluru under a sub-contract and he had submitted an Escrow agreement to transfer the receivables of the project and the Board of Directors had further resolved to request accused No. 4 in C.C.No.495/2016 to mortgage certain lands in favour of the second respondent, which to the knowledge of the accused No. 4 were already alienated prior to the execution of the collateral security and the petitioner was also in the knowledge of the same namely that the land which was being furnished as collateral security was already alienated and therefore it could not be the subject matter of any subsequent proceedings. But, on the strength of forged documents in order to defraud the respondent No. 2 and to avail the loan, the petitioner along with accused No. 4 had fabricated the documents and the petitioner is now seeking to mislead this Court that only accused No. 4 was responsible, whereas, it is claimed that the petitioner had also approved the collateral security furnished and the petitioner had routed the said project to the State Bank of India and the accused company's account with the complainant went into default and the account had become Non-performing assets (NPA). It was thereafter that the complainant had conducted enquiries which revealed other fraudulent and collusive acts carried out by the petitioner and other accused namely that the mortgaged property had already been alienated as early as in the year 2012 with the full knowledge of the Board of Directors who passed a resolution to furnish mortgaged property as collateral security and further the petitioner has also furnished the personal guarantees, indemnity bonds and declarations furnishing the collateral security. Agricultural land measuring about 1 acre 22 guntas had been converted into sites and there were houses built and people were living there and the complainant was kept in the dark of this. The complainant however had been shown a different parcel of land prior to the sanction of loan as the land which was being offered as security. 4. The complainant was misled as to the land being the one that was offered as security whereas, the actual land was already built up and was in occupation of third parties. The encumbrance certificate submitted by the borrower did not reflect any transaction of the property and therefore was a fabricated one and the market value of the property was shown as Rs. 25.31 crore, whereas the property was sold for just Rs. 1.31 Crores. The sale amount was paid by way of cash as per the sale deed, while such a large sum of money could not have been paid by way of cash. It was also done in order to defraud the complainant. The encumbrance certificate, voter's identity card and pan card provided by Adinarayan Gupta - accused No. 4 before the complainant are all false documents and it is in retrospect it was learnt that the voter's identity card was fake. The income tax authorities also had intimated that the Pan Card was also a fake document and it was also found that the fourth accused did not reside in the place where he had shown to be his residential address and to top it, he was impersonating one B.S. Adinarayana Gupta who was actually 87 years old. Therefore, the fraudulent acts of the petitioner were exposed along with that of accused No. 4. Consequently, the proceedings having been initiated, cannot be faulted.