KRISHNAGOPAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE applications are filed by accused Nos.4, 2 and 3 and 5, respectively in Crime No.906 of 2013 of the Thrikkakkara Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 12B of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.3(1)(v) and (xv) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, "the Act"). Accused apprehend arrest and seek pre -arrest bail.

(2.) CASE arose on a private complaint preferred by the de facto complainant. According to the de facto complainant, at a time when he was in need of money for the marriage of his daughter, the 6th accused and one Shahul Hameed (who is not so far made an accused) offered to arrange loan and introduced the 2nd accused who gave Rs.75,000/ - for discharge of liability to the Bank (concerning the property of the de facto complainant and his wife) and Rs.1,00,000/ - for marriage purposes. The 2nd accused (allegedly) told the de facto complainant that as the tower line goes over the property, the Bank is not willing to grant the loan on the security of that property. The 2nd accused pressurised the de facto complainant to return the money he had advanced. He threatened to take away ornaments of the daughter of the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant requested time to repay the amount. At that time the 2nd accused and Shahul Hameed brought the 1st accused pressurising the de facto complainant to repay the amount. On 19.07.2013, at the office of the Sub Registrar, Kakkanad without disclosing the facts, certain stamp papers were got signed. Later it was revealed that it was a sale deed got executed by the 2nd accused in the name of the 1st accused. Influencing accused 3 and 4 (the 4th accused was then the Manager of State Bank of Hyderabad, Vennala branch), R Rs.25 lakhs was sanctioned as loan (a purchase loan in the name of the 1st accused). Out of that, the 1st accused collected Rs.8,82,850/ -, while the 2nd accused took Rs.9,64,100, the 3rd accused collected Rs.1,25,000/ - and the 6th accused took Rs.41,600/ -. Accused 1 and 2 obtained signed blank cheques of the de facto complainant to withdraw the amount (since the demand draft for the purchase loan was issued in the name of the de facto complainant). The de facto complainant got only Rs.4,80,000/ -. The 1st accused has been remitting the interest (payable by the de facto complainant) in the Bank. While so, the Bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and to take possession of the property, the Advocate Commissioner inspected that property three times. It is alleged that the accused conspired together, cheated the de facto complainant and misappropriated the amount. It is alleged that the de facto complainant belongs to the Scheduled Case and offences under Sec.3(1)(v) and (xv) of the Act are also committed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for accused 3 and 5 contended that the 5th accused is a Scheduled Caste as revealed by Annexure -A1 (produced in B.A. No.6439 of 2013) and hence prima facie the offences under the Act would not lie against the 5th accused. It is also contended that allegation of conspiracy against accused 3 and 5 is prima facie unsustainable.