Man hoodwinked of Rs 47 lakh by HC employee

Y. Maheswara Reddy | NT

If you are getting tempting offers of properties at 50 per cent rebate, better carry out a due diligence. Or you risk losing your peace and hardearned money.

According to a FIR registered by Hanumanthanagar police, two people, including a stenographer at the high court, had conned a person by telling him that they will help him buy a benami property seized by the government at a low price. They even cited a non-existent rule to hoodwink him.

Keshava Murthy K.K. had introduced Mamatha J, working as a stenographer at Karnataka High Court, to the victim, Mahendra R. Keshava Murthy, and told him that Mamata has the data on benami properties seized by the government.

The accused informed Mahendra that in the High Court, property situated in Bengaluru without proper documents are taken by the Government and it will be handled by one agency for one site (one file) Rs 2 lakh fee has to be paid and within 35-40 days, Rs 1,45,000 will be added. It is called a slot. There are 7,000 files; the same system will begin from June 2021 to December 2021 which will be once in five years.

It is alleged that the accused told the victim that High Court staff will have 94 slots and he could buy one if he was interested.

According to the complaint, the accused had told the victim that the slots (properties) are allotted at 50 per cent price of market value. Believing the accused, the victim and his brother have transferred Rs 15,70,000 from June to September 2021 to the accused (Mamatha) account and Rs 24,85,000 and Rs 6,45,000 paid to the accused in the presence of accused No. 2 (Keshava Murthy).

The accused have allegedly produced the proof to prove that all transactions have been entered into the High Court Ledger. The victim, later came to know that there is no such system in the High Court, and demanded that the accused return his money.

Hanumanthanagar police have registered a case against Mamatha and Keshava Murthy K K under the Sections 406 (Breach of trust), 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), and 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

Meanwhile, the High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application of Mamatha stating that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already been arrested. “Hence, the petition may be dismissed as having become infructuous,” the High Court Judge said while dismissing the anticipatory bail petition.