IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CMM COURT COMPLEX,

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, AT BENGALURU

CRIME No.347/2023

BETWEEN

CEN (Cyber Crime) P.S. EAST CEN CRIME, EAST Division, Bengaluru

AND

SHARADHA KRISHNAMURTHY, Proprietor:: M/s. Kallpavriksh Traders

ADDRESS: 4M-202, 4th main, OMBR Layout, BENGALURU-560043

Mobile no: 7760587587

GST: 29AKYPK39591123

Email: kallpa2023@gmail.com

R/at: flat No.304, Sree Sal Paradise Building, No.203, OMBR Layout, BENGALURU-560043

APPLICANT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

Unknown Persons

Facts of the case

1. The Complainant Police have registered a case against unknown persons for offenses
punishable under Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
2. The Applicant, Sharadha Krishnamurthy, is the proprietor of M/s Kallpavriksh Traders,
engaged in the business of manufacturing lab chemicals, lab glassware, lab
equipment, supplier/exporter of soil and water testing kits, FRP coracles, tricycles,
and water meter pipes, tailored to the needs of various works across India.
3. The Applicant operates an account with BANK OF BARODA, Kasturinagar Branch,
Bengaluru-560043, which is the primary account for its business operations.
4. The Applicant placed orders for materials, transferring amounts totaling Rs.
16,45,369/- to accounts held by Krishna Kumar and Nikita Jain of Krishna Enterprises.
However, the materials received were of substandard quality, and the accused failed
to refund the amount or replace the goods.
5. The accused transferred the amounts to two beneficiary accounts: one with Federal
Bank, Lakshmi Nagar, DELHI, and another with YES Bank, NOIDA, U.P.
6. The Complainant Police, upon investigation, discovered the involvement of the
accused accounts in the fraudulent transaction. Bank officials confirmed the presence
of remaining funds in the accused accounts, which belong to the
Petitioner/Complainant.
7. The Applicant promptly approached the Complainant Police, providing details of the
fraudulent transaction and submitting relevant documents for investigation. They
 also requested the unfreezing of their bank account, which had a balance of Rs.
[insert balance].
8. The Applicant, as a trader, suffered financial loss due to the fraudulent transaction
with Krishna Enterprises. Despite being a victim, their account remains frozen,
denying them access to their funds.

List of evidences

1. Transaction Records: Transaction IDs of payments made to the accused, totaling Rs. 16,45,369/-,
for the purchase of materials.
2. Bank Account Details: Details of the Applicant's account with BANK OF BARODA, Kasturinagar
Branch, Bengaluru-560043, which was used for the transactions.
3. Beneficiary Account Details: Details of the beneficiary accounts where the accused transferred
the funds, including account numbers and IFSC codes.
4. Purchase Orders: Copies of purchase orders placed by the Applicant for materials, indicating the
agreed-upon transactions.
5. Invoices: Invoices for the materials ordered, showing the amount paid and the expected goods.
6. Email Correspondence: Copies of emails between the Applicant and the accused regarding the
transactions.
7. Bank Statements: One year's worth of bank statements for the Applicant's account, showing the
transactions in question.
8. Complaint Copy: Copy of the complaint filed by the Applicant with the Complainant Police,
detailing the fraudulent transaction.
9. Request for Account Unfreezing: Written request to the Complainant Police to unfreeze the
Applicant's bank account, submitted on 27.03.2023.
10. Modus Operandi Statement: Written statement detailing the modus operandi of the fraud and
the fraudulent use of the funds by the accused.
11. Any Other Relevant Documents: Any other documents deemed relevant to the investigation
and case.

The sections under indian evidence act in which the evidence are admissible
1. Transaction Records: These are admissible under Section 34 (Entries in books of account when
relevant) and Section 35 (Relevancy of entry in public record or an electronic record made in
performance of duty).
2. Bank Account Details: These could be admissible under Section 32 (Cases in which statement of
relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant).
3. Beneficiary Account Details: These could also be admissible under Section 34 or Section 35,
similar to transaction records.
4. Purchase Orders: Admissible under Section 32 or Section 34, depending on the circumstances.
5. Invoices: Admissible under Section 32 or Section 34, depending on the circumstances.
6. Email Correspondence: Admissible under Section 65B (Admissibility of electronic records) if it
meets the requirements of Section 65B(4) (Special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic
record).

7. Bank Statements: Admissible under Section 34 or Section 35, similar to transaction records.
8. Complaint Copy: Admissible under Section 32 or Section 34, depending on the circumstances.
9. Request for Account Unfreezing: Admissible under Section 32 or Section 34, depending on the
circumstances.
10. Modus Operandi Statement: Admissible under Section 32 or Section 34, depending on the
circumstances.

Facts

In the case of Smt. M. Yashoda vs. The State of Karnataka, the plaintiff, Smt. M. Yashoda, claimed
ownership of a property located at No.14, 5th Cross, Syndicate Bank Lane, Konena Agrahara,
Bengaluru. She acquired this property through a registered sale deed dated 8th May 1998. Smt.
Yashoda asserted that she had been residing on the property for the past 14 years and had paid
taxes, obtained a khatha (property ownership document) from BBMP in her name, and received
construction plan sanctions.

She argued that her property did not fall within Sy.No.60 of Konena Agrahara village, which had
previously been classified as a tank bed area but was de-notified by the government. The plaintiff
claimed that her property was part of Sy.No.59/1.

Legal disputes arose when the defendants, represented by the State of Karnataka and the Task
Force, issued notices alleging encroachment on the plaintiff's property. However, Smt. Yashoda
contested these claims, asserting that her property was not subject to the disputed Sy.No.60.

In response to the notices, the plaintiff objected, arguing that her property was not encroached land.
Despite her objections, the Deputy Commissioner rejected her contentions. She withdrew her
appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal after the Tahsildar's survey confirmed that her
property fell within Sy.No.59/1, not Sy.No.60.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants' actions violated principles of natural justice and legal
requirements. She expressed apprehension that the defendants might attempt to demolish
structures on her property.

Due to the urgency of the situation and the fear of losing possession, the plaintiff sought leave from
the court to institute the suit without issuing notice to the defendants. Additionally, she argued that
the actions of the defendants, including the BMTF officials taking photographs of her property
without informing her, were unjust.

List of evidences :

The plaintiff, Smt. M. Yashoda, submitted the following documentary evidence in support of her
case:

Ex.P.1: Registered sale deed dated 8th May 1998.

Ex.P.2: Property tax receipts.

Ex.P.3: Khatha (property ownership document) issued by BBMP.

Ex.P.4: Construction plan sanctions.

Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.40: Additional documentary evidence, which may include land records, survey reports,
correspondence with authorities, or any other relevant documents supporting the plaintiff's claim

Section under iea in which the evidence are admissible:

Ex.P.1: Registered Sale Deed:

This document would likely be admissible under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, which deals
with the admission of statements by persons who cannot be called as witnesses. Specifically, this
falls under Section 32(2), which allows for the admission of documents containing statements of
deceased persons about the ownership of property. Since the sale deed may contain statements of
the seller or other relevant parties who may be deceased or unavailable, it could be admitted under
this provision.

Ex.P.2: Property Tax Receipts:

These receipts may be admissible under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, which deals with the
relevancy of entries in public records made in the performance of duty. Property tax receipts issued
by the municipal authorities are considered public records, and entries therein made in the course of
official duty are relevant and admissible as evidence.

Ex.P.3: Khatha (Property Ownership Document) Issued by BBMP:

Similar to property tax receipts, the khatha issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
(BBMP) would likely be admissible under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act as a public record
made in the performance of duty.

Ex.P.4: Construction Plan Sanctions:

These documents would also fall under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. Construction plan
sanctions issued by the relevant authorities, such as the municipal corporation or local planning
department, are considered public records made in the performance of duty and are admissible as
evidence.

Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.40: Additional Documentary Evidence:

The admissibility of these additional documents would depend on their nature and content. They
may include land records, survey reports, correspondence with authorities, or any other relevant
documents supporting the plaintiff's claim. If these documents are maintained in the ordinary course
of business or are otherwise relevant to the case, they may be admissible under various provisions
of the Indian Evidence Act, such as Section 35 (entries in public records), Section 32 (statements by
deceased persons), or Section 65 (secondary evidence)