1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Wednesday, the Seventh day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD)No.11084 of 2011 1 NATCHIAMMAL 2 ADAIKKALAM 3 ARUMUGAM :PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 -Vs- THE STATE REP. BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI RURAL. CRIME NO.31/2011 :RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT M.VENKATESHAPERUMAL :INTERVENOR (MP(MD)1/11) For Petitioner : M/S. G.R.SWAMINATHAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. For Intervenor : MR.S.MUTHALRAJ, ADVOCATE. PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 Cr.P.C. ORDER:The Court Made the following order:- The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 468, 471 and 420 I.P.C in Crime No.31 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A3 and A1 and A2 are the legal heirs of one Kodangi, who is the owner of the property bearing Survey Nos.90/6A and 93/3C. He would further submit that the first petitioner is the wife, the second petitioner is the daughter and the third petitioner is the son-in-law of Kodangi. He would further submit that the said Kodangi died on 31.05.1998 and the patta for the above said property stands in the name of Kodangi and after his death, A1 and A2 executed a sale deed in favour of the de-facto complainant's father viz., Mathavan in respect of Survey No.90/6A to an extent of 35 cents and A1 and A2 executed another sale deed in favour of A3 viz., Arumugam in respect of Survey No.93/3C to an extent of 40 cents. Since the de-facto complainant herein has disputed the same stating that Survey No.90/6A and Survey No.93/3C are one and the same property and he filed a suit in O.S.No.118 of 2011, on the file of the District Munsif, Madurai for declaration of title and for injunction. He would further submit that he filed Field measurement plan, it shows that S.No.90/6A is different from S.No.93/3C and the patta in S.No.90/6A stands in the name of the de-facto complainant's father, it was yet to be changed. He would further submit the petitioners are innocent and a false case has been foisted against them and the first petitioner is 70 years old and they apprehend for arrest and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit that the property in Survey No.90/6A and 93/3C are one and the same and four boundaries are one and the same and they created a fabricated sale deed dated 22.11.2010. He would further submit that the petitioners have filed an anticipatory application before the District Court and the same was dismissed on 17.08.2011, same was suppressed. He would further submit that A1 and A2 have executed a sale deed in favour of A3, who is none other than https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the son-in-law of A1 and husband of A2, A3 is the attestor in the sale deed and the investigation is going on and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 4.Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) would submit that the petitioners are trying to change the patta in the name of Arumugam/A3 and a case has been registered against them and the investigation is in initial stage and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 5.Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and also considering the fact that one Kodangi is the owner of the property and it is admitted by both sides and the case of the de-facto complainant is that S.No.90/6A and 93/3C are one and the same property, but falsifying the same, the petitioners herein filed filed measurement plan to show that there is two survey numbers, even though the page No.11 of the typed-set of papers, it is stated that the four boundaries of both parties are one and the same, it will not be a ground for rejecting the anticipatory bail application and the S.Nos.90/6A and 93/3C are one and the same, it has to be decided by a civil forum and not by a criminal Court and as per the version of the learned counsel for the intervenor, the petitioners have suppressed the material fact that they filed an anticipatory bail application in Crl.O.P.No.2711 of 2011 which was dismissed on 17.08.2011 but that fact has been mentioned in the application further more, a sale deed has been executed on 17.09.1999 which was purchased by the de-facto complainant's father and patta also stands in the de-facto complainant's father name, it is true and A1 & A2 have executed a sale deed in favour of A3, who is none other than the son-in-law of A1 and husband of A2 and a civil suit is pending before the District Munsif Court, Madurai for declaration of title and for injunction, hence, the petitioners have to workout their remedy before a civil forum since it is a civil dispute and the investigation is considerably over, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously. 7.The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 07/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO:1.The Judicial Magistrate No:I, Madurai. 2.-Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4.The Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai Rural. +1. CC to M/S. G.R.SWAMINATHAN Advocate SR.No.30360. RP/13.09.2011/2P/6C. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11084 of 2011,Date :07/09/2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/