Madhusudan Rao Badipetla v. State of Karnataka

The Cyber Blog IndiaCase SummaryLeave a Comment

Bail application for deceitfully obtaining sale deeds for apartments

Madhusudan Rao Badipetla v. State of Karnataka
In the High Court of Karnataka
Cr. P. 3675/2021
Before Justice BM Shyam Prasad
Decided on May 19, 2021

Relevancy of the case: Bail application for deceitfully obtaining sale deeds for apartments

Statues and Provisions Involved

  • The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66D)
  • The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 506, 504, 120B, 420)
  • The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 156(3))

Relevant Facts of the Case

  • The petitioner deceitfully obtained sale deeds for two apartments built on the complaint’s land from the complainant.
  • The petitioner claimed that he had transferred the agreed part of the sale consideration to the complainant. However, due to a technical error, the complainant had not received confirmation thereof on his mobile.
  • The complainant had also approached the local police; however, they concluded that no offence is made out.
  • Thereafter, the complainant filed an application before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who referred the complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

  • The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the parties have exchanged legal notices even before this complaint. In one previous notice issued by the complainant, he stated that the petitioner was only a labour contractor. The complainant had availed his service for the construction of apartments.
  • The petitioner responded to such notice, creating the circumstances leading to the said transaction. Further, the petitioner categorically replied that he is not a contractor and he has executed the construction after agreeing with the complainant. Moreover, the execution of sale deeds is a part of this transaction.
  • The petitioner’s counsel stated that the complainant has resorted to initiating criminal proceedings for browbeating the petitioner.

Opinion of the Bench

  • The court went through the legal notice, the sale deeds, and the prevailing circumstances. Thereafter, the bench believed that the petitioner has made a prima facie case for granting anticipatory bail.

Final Decision

  • As a result, the bench granted the anticipatory bail with conditions.

Julia Anna Joseph, an undergraduate student at Christ (Deemed to be University), prepared this case summary during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2022.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.