Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Wife And Son Of Lawyer Accused Of Sending Fake Orders To Client

The Karnataka High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to the wife and son of a lawyer accused of offences of forgery and cheating under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 

The allegations

The complainant had filed Writ Petition bearing No.56012/2015 and RSA No.50/2017 in this High Court. She has engaged accused No.1 to prosecute both the cases and in this regard she has paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to accused No.1 and petitioners by way of Demand Draft, Cash and 3 Cheques. It is further alleged that accused No.1 had sent Court orders by Whats App message bearing the seal of the High Court as well as signature of the Registrar. When the complainant has checked the same in the High Court website, it was found that the orders were not there. Then when she enquired with accused No.1, it is asserted that due to Corona, certain orders were not uploaded. However, the complainant then suspected that they appears to be fake orders and she approached accused No.1. But accused No.1 on the contrary abused her in filthy language and then she asked accused No.1 to return her case’s files as well as amount of Rs.10,00,000/- received by her. 

But accused No.1 did not refund the said amount. Hence complainant has filed a complaint on 04.07.2022 before the concerned jurisdictional police and crime came to be registered. Justice Rajendra Badamikar observed that although it was alleged that the accused received money paid as fees by the client, there was no evidence to prove the same.

The present petitioners are the wife and son of accused No.1 and it is also alleged that they have also received a certain amount from the complainant. They approached the learned Sessions judge seeking anticipatory bail but Sessions Judge rejected the bail petition. Therefore, the petitioners approached the Karnataka High Court.

Petitioners are not legal practitioners says the Court

After hearing the arguments, the Judge was of the view that it is evident that accused No.1 is a legal practitioner and the complainant has entrusted writ petition No.56012/2015 and RSA No.50/2017 to him to prosecute on her behalf. Further, she has alleged to have given Rs.10,00,000/- to him. Though it is alleged that amount was paid to the present petitioners also, but prima-facie no material evidence is placed to show that the present petitioners have received any amount from the complainant. Further, the present petitioners are not legal practitioners. 

The allegation does disclose that it is only accused No.1 who has forged the Court’s orders and sent them through Whats App to the complainant. Though there is an allegation in the complaint that the amount is also paid to the present petitioners also, but the prosecution has not produced any scrap of paper to show that any amount was deposited to the account of the present petitioners. Petitioner No.2 is the woman and petitioner No.3 is the student. Petitioner No.2 falls under the exception. The offences alleged are not exclusively punishable with death or life imprisonment, and are triable by the learned Magistrate. Further, the main allegation regarding forgery and cheating is against accused No.1.  

Granting anticipatory bail to the accused Justice Rajendra Badamikar said, "I do not find any impediment to admitting the petitioners on bail. The other apprehensions raised by the learned HCGP can be meted by imposing certain conditions."