JUDGMENT H.P. Sandesh, J. - This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.215/2021 registered by Basaveshwara Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506, 420, 468, 471 and 120B read with Section 34 of IPC pending on the file of V aCMM Court, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant had lodged the complaint stating that petitioner No.1 and his associates cheated her by creating the documents. When she had questioned the same, the petitioners were abused her in a filthy language and outraged her modesty by tearing her cloths and assaulted on her shoulder and threatened to her life. The complainant in the complaint stated that the wife of the petitioner No.1 is her classmate and she came in contact with petitioner No.1 when she was looking for purchasing the land in the outskirts of Bengaluru and petitioner Nos.1 and 2 showed her land measuring 19 acres 10 guntas at Sathanur Grama, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk standing in the name of Smt. Rathnamma W/o Lakshman Gupta and in this regard, it was finalized for an amount of Rs.7 crore and the complainant had agreed to purchase the said land in the month of July 2017. Thereafter, on 31.08.2017, Smt. Rathnamma, her children and one partner Sri P.G.Nataraja-petitioner No.2 herein has executed the registered sale agreement along with possession of the land in her favour and received the entire sale consideration from the complainant and also executed the registered GPa, petitioner No.2 also executed the deed of declaration on 15.03.2018 in the presence of accused No.3-petitioner No.3 herein. Thereafter, the revenue proceedings were also taken place. But the said P.G.Nataraja-petitioner No.2 along with other petitioners have executed the sale deed in favour of one Umesh Shyama Raju vide sale deed dated 26.07.2021 and hence, the complainant lodged the complaint for the aforesaid offences. 4. Thereafter, the revenue proceedings were also taken place. But the said P.G.Nataraja-petitioner No.2 along with other petitioners have executed the sale deed in favour of one Umesh Shyama Raju vide sale deed dated 26.07.2021 and hence, the complainant lodged the complaint for the aforesaid offences. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that these petitioners have not at all committed any offence as alleged by the complainant and even there are no ingredients of offences are made out in the complaint and the complaint is very vague and with the sole intention to harass these petitioners, the present complaint is filed. The averments of the complaint itself goes to show that she is a party to all the alleged transactions i.e., agreement of sale, deed of declaration, sale deed dated 26.07.2021, MOU dated 12.03.2018 in respect of the particular land and she had also received crores of rupees from Shyamaraju, Umesh Shyama Raju by way of cheque and got deposited in to her account and inspite of receiving money from the concerned persons, being party to the alleged sale transaction and being aware of every transaction in respect of the land in question, the complainant has filed this false and frivolous complaint with an ulterior motive. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners brought to notice of this Court that the dispute is in civil in nature and the same was adjudicated before the assistant Commissioner and the complainant being aware of the said fact, with an intention to implicate these petitioners, a false complaint is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in the alleged agreement of sale, MOU, deed of declaration, sale deed, the complainant is a party in almost all the documents in the capacity as a GPa holder. absolutely, there is no mention of iota of allegations and the role played by each of the petitioners. The entire allegations in the complaint are civil in nature and the complainant is attempting to convert the civil litigation into the alleged crime. The remedy available to the complainant is that she may file the original suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed, instead of that, she had given criminal colour to the civil dispute and hence, it requires interference of this Court. 6. The remedy available to the complainant is that she may file the original suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed, instead of that, she had given criminal colour to the civil dispute and hence, it requires interference of this Court. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Ratnamma had executed the deed of dissolution on 08.09.1994 after receiving the consideration since she was also the partner of the said firm and apart from that she had also executed an affidavit stating that she is not having any right and suppressing the said fact, in collusion with the said Ratnamma, the present complaint is filed by the complainant. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The counsel for the petitioners also vehemently contend that the very contents of the MOU dated 12.03.2018 is clear that she had received the consideration amount, instead of that she had filed the present complaint. The counsel vehemently contend that when the complainant aware of all these transactions, there is no prima facie material against these petitioners and hence, prayed to allow the present petition. 7. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the State in his argument vehemently contend that the property in question was purchased by B.C.Lakshman Gupta vide registered sale deed dated 26.11.1970 and the partnership firm was formed wherein petitioner No.2 herein and B.C.Lakshman Gupta were partners. The said B.C.Lakshman Gupta passed away and the subject land was inherited to his wife B.L.Rathnamma as his legal heir. The katha was also transferred in the name of B.L.Rathnamma. The said Rathnamma along with her children and petitioner No.2 as a confirming party executed the registered agreement of sale with possession on 31.08.2017 in favour of the purchaser i.e., de-facto complainant. Petitioner No.2 received an amount of Rs.33 lakh and petitioner Nos.1 and 3 were the signatories to the said transaction as witnesses. The said B.L.Rathnamma along with her children executed the registered General Power of attorney in favour of the de-facto complainant and in that document also petitioner Nos.1 and 3 were the signatories as witnesses to the transaction. 8. Petitioner No.2 received an amount of Rs.33 lakh and petitioner Nos.1 and 3 were the signatories to the said transaction as witnesses. The said B.L.Rathnamma along with her children executed the registered General Power of attorney in favour of the de-facto complainant and in that document also petitioner Nos.1 and 3 were the signatories as witnesses to the transaction. 8. The said B.L.Rathnamma along with her children through General Power of attorney i.e., de-facto complainant entered into the registered MOU with Shyama Raju on 12.03.2018 and promised to sell the land for a sum of Rs.51 crore and the de-facto complainant receives an advance amount of Rs.4,80,00,000/-, for that, petitioner No.4 was the signatory as witness to the transaction. Petitioner No.2 executed the registered deed of declaration in favour of de-facto complainant declaring that he is having no right, interest and title over the said land on 15.03.2018. Petitioner Nos.1 and 3 were the signatories as witnesses to the said transaction. Petitioner No.2 representing to be the partner of a dissolved firm approached the assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North and submitted fabricated documents and beyond the back of de-facto complainant, got the katha transferred in the name of dissolved firm and thereafter on 26.07.2021, he claims to be a partner of dissolved firm conveys the subject land in favour of Umesh Shyama Raju in terms of the said document and petitioner No.2 received a sum of Rs.15,20,00,000/- and out of the said total amount, the payment detail of Rs.4,80,00,000/- is shown as cheque dated 12.03.2018, the said payment under the cheque was received by de-facto complainant under the registered MOU dated 12.03.2018. Petitioner No.1 is shown as agreement holder No.1 and he had received a sum of Rs.5 crore and petitioner No.4 is shown as agreement holder No.2 and he had received a sum of Rs.22,80,00,000/- and hence, de-facto complainant had lodged the complaint and the case was registered by the police for the aforesaid offences. 9. The counsel appearing for the State would submit that all the petitioners have committed fraud against the de-facto complainant and these documents clearly disclose that knowingfully well, all of them have indulged in creation of documents as well as committed fraud on the complainant and hence, there is a prima facie material against them and they are not entitled for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 10. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the State would submit that the petitioners have already approached this Court filing the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C in Crl.P.No.225/2022 connected with Crl.P.No.8329/2021 seeking for an order to quash the proceedings in respect of Cr.No.215/2021 in which the bail is sought and this Court while disposing of the said petition made an observation that the documents show that there is a creation of false documents by the petitioners herein and petitioner No.2 received a sum of Rs.93 lakh by signing as a confirming party and petitioner No.1 is also a witness to the said transaction and knowingfully the said fact, they executed the sale deed in favour of Umesh S Raju which clearly attracts the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC and creation of false documents would also attract Sections 468, 471 of IPC and came to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the revision petitioners and hence, they are not entitled for the bail. 11. The counsel appearing for the de-facto complainant filed the written arguments and this Court given permission only to assist the learned Public Prosecutor when an application is filed under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C. 12. Having heard the respective counsel appearing for the parties and also on perusal of the material available on record as well as the documents filed by the de-facto complainant through learned High Court Government Pleader for the State it is clear that originally, the property belonged to one Lakshman Gupta and he passed away in the year 1992 and thereafter, the property was transferred to his wife Ratnamma as his legal heir in the year 1993. The petitioners claims that the said Rathnamma executed a declaration document in the year 1994 and the said document is also disputed by the de-facto complainant and apart from that the petitioners have not disputed the sale agreement executed by Rathnamma in favour of the de-facto complainant vide sale agreement dated 31.08.2017 wherein petitioner No.2 also received an amount of Rs.93 lakh. This document is a registered document. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the sale agreement, irrecoverable General Power of attorney was executed by Rathnamma along with her family members in favour of the de-facto complainant on the same day. This document is a registered document. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the sale agreement, irrecoverable General Power of attorney was executed by Rathnamma along with her family members in favour of the de-facto complainant on the same day. It is also not in dispute that there was a MOU dated 12.03.2018 executed by Rathnamma and her family members through General Power of attorney holder i.e., de-facto complainant in favour of one Shyama Raju who is none other than the father of the subsequent purchaser wherein sale consideration is shown as Rs.51 crore and in terms of MOU, a cheque was given for an amount of Rs.4,80,00,000/- in favour of the de-facto complainant as advance. 13. It is important to note that within three days of the said MOU i.e., on 15.03.2018, petitioner No.2 executed a deed of declaration stating that he has no right in respect of the property in question and that document is also a registered document. Even though those documents are standing in the name of the de-facto complainant, petitioner No.2 had approached the assistant Commissioner and obtained an order in respect of dissolved partnership firm and in the name of dissolved partnership firm, he had executed the absolute sale deed on 26.07.2021 in favour of Umesh Shyama Raju wherein the sale consideration is shown as Rs.43 crore and it is important to note that the very cheque given in favour of the de-facto complainant under the MOU was also shown as sale consideration in terms of the subsequent sale deed. But de-facto complainant is not a party to the said sale deed and all these transactions are taken place in respect of the very same property and hence, it is clear that petitioner No.2 had indulged in fraudulent act and though he had received an amount of Rs.93 lakh in terms of the registered sale agreement executed in favour of the de-facto complainant, he had indulged in executing the sale deed in the year 2021. Having known to all these transactions and also had received the sale consideration earlier itself and also executed a declaration subsequent to the MOU and hence, it is clear that he had indulged in creation of documents and also committed fraud and hence, petitioner No.2 is not entitled for the anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 14. Having known to all these transactions and also had received the sale consideration earlier itself and also executed a declaration subsequent to the MOU and hence, it is clear that he had indulged in creation of documents and also committed fraud and hence, petitioner No.2 is not entitled for the anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 14. Now, coming to petitioner No.1, he is also aware of the earlier sale agreement executed in favour of the de-facto complainant vide sale agreement of the year 2017 and he was one of the witness to the said sale agreement and apart from that he is also a witness to the registered General Power of attorney executed in favour of the de-facto complainant which was also executed on the same day and hence, he was aware of all these transactions but while executing the sale deed in favour of Umesh Shyama Raju, he was termed as agreement holder No.1 and executed the sale deed in favour of said Umesh Shyama Raju knowingfully well of the earlier transaction made in favour of the de-facto complainant and hence, he also indulged in committing fraud and apart from that he had received the sale consideration in terms of the absolute sale deed and hence, it is clear that fraudulent act is done by this petitioner also and hence, he is also not entitled for the anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 15. With regard to petitioner No.3 is concerned, he was the signatory to the sale agreement as one of the witness and also signatory to the irrecoverable General Power of attorney executed by Rathnamma in favour of the de-facto complainant as witness No.1 and apart from that he was also witness to the declaration executed by petitioner No.2. But this petitioner was not witness to the MOU and he was only witness to the sale agreement, General Power of attorney and deed of declaration and he had not indulged in any act of creation of documents and hence, petitioner No.3 is entitled for the anticipatory bail invoking under Section 438 of Cr.P.C 16. But this petitioner was not witness to the MOU and he was only witness to the sale agreement, General Power of attorney and deed of declaration and he had not indulged in any act of creation of documents and hence, petitioner No.3 is entitled for the anticipatory bail invoking under Section 438 of Cr.P.C 16. With regard to petitioner No.4 is concerned, no doubt, he is not a party to the earlier documents i.e., sale agreement, General Power of attorney and also the declaration but he came into picture only during the course of entering into the MOU wherein the de-facto complainant entered into the MOU in favour of one Shyama Raju and he is signatory to the said document as witness No.2 and having aware of the said MOU, he became as vendor as agreement holder No.2 while executing the absolute sale deed in favour of one Umesh Shyama Raju knowingfully well that the said MOU executed by the de-facto complainant in favour of Shyama Raju and the document of sale deed reveals that this petitioner as agreement holder No.2 executed the document along with petitioner Nos.1, an amount of Rs.22,80,00,000/- was received and hence, it is clear that petitioner No.4 also indulged in creation of documents knowingfully well that there was an earlier MOU and he became part of the execution of the sale deed terming him as agreement holder No.2 and hence, prima facie material discloses against this petitioner as he was also indulged in creation of documents and part of committing fraud. Hence, petitioner No.4 is also not entitled for anticipatory bail. 17. The learned counsel for the State also brought to notice of this Court rejection of the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR wherein also this Court considered the merits of the case and made an observation with regard to the attracting the ingredients of Sections 420, 468, 471 of IPC and declined to grant any relief in favour of the petitioners. 18. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER The bail petition in respect of petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4 is rejected. The bail petition in respect of petitioner No.3 is allowed. 18. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER The bail petition in respect of petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4 is rejected. The bail petition in respect of petitioner No.3 is allowed. Consequently, petitioner No.3 shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.215/2021 registered by Basaveshwara Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506, 420, 468, 471 and 120B read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner No.3 shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. (ii) The petitioner No.3 shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner No.3 shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for. (iv) The petitioner No.3 shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier. (v) The petitioner No.3 shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 30th of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge-sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.