BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Sixth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) Nos.11438 and 11443 of 2011 1 VALLAVAN @ RAJU 2 R.KANNAN 3 S.MANOKARAN 4 MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM 5 PERIYASAMY ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED(RANK NOT KNOWN) in Crl.OP(MD)No.11438 of 2011 NAGOOR KANI ..PETITIONER/ACCUSED(RANK NOT KNOWN) in Crl.OP(MD)No.11443 of 2011 Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANTI-LAND GRABBING CELL MADURAI RURAL, MADURAI. MADURAI DISTRICT CR.NO.57 of 2011 ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT in Both the Petitions For Petitioner in Crl.OP(MD)No.11438 of 2011 : MR.K.PRABHAKARAN for MR.K.MUTHURAMALINGAM, Advocate For Petitioner in Crl.OP(MD)No.11443 of 2011 : MR.S.KRISHNAN, Advocate For Respondent in Both the Petitions : MR.A.RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITIONS FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/accused in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11438 of 2011 and the petitioner/accused in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11443 of 2011 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 120(b), 147, 148, 452, 406, 420, 387 and 506(ii) I.P.C. in crime No.57 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the alleged occurrence has been taken place on 29.11.2001 and the complaint has been given only on 03.09.2011 and the case has been registered against 4 names persons and 10 others for the offence under Sections 120(b), 147, 148, 452, 406, 420, 387 and 506(ii) I.P.C. He would further submit that the complaint has been given by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ one Ramadoss and his brother is one Rangaraj and he has obtained loan from A1/petitioner No.2 from 1994 to 2000 to the tune of Rs.19 lakhs and since he is unable to repay that amount, his brother, the defacto complainant himself executed the power of attorney in favour of A4 for discharging the loan on 15.12.1999 and on 01.06.2000, they executed the sale agreement to A4, but, on 18.12.2000, the power deed has been cancelled by the defacto complainant. 3.He would further submit that A3 has filed a suit in O.S.No.228 of 2002 before the 3rd Assistant Sessions Judge, Madurai for specific performance and an exparte decree was passed on 24.02.2002 and thereafter, A3 has filed execution petition and obtained the sale deed and it was executed by the Court of law on 11.02.2003. He would further submit that the defacto complainant has filed I.A.No.222 of 2008 for setting aside the exparte decree, in which, A3 herein, has filed a counter affidavit, which was pending before the concerned Court. 4.He would further submit that the allegations in the F.I.R. is that the petitioners and others threatened the defacto complainant on 07.06.2008, but the complaint has been given only on 03.09.2011 i.e. after three years, because of the present scenario, a false complaint has been given. He would further submit that admittedly, it is a civil dispute and A3 obtained the property from the Court of law and the decree is yet to be set aside and since, they apprehend arrests, they have have forward with the present application. 5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the defacto complainant's brother Rangaraj has borrowed a sum of Rs.19 lakhs and repaid a sum of Rs.54 lakhs as interest. Even though A3 has demanded more money, the defacto complainant stood as a gurantor for repayment of the amount and he executed the power of attorney in favour of A4, who executed the sale deed in favour of A1 for Rs.35 lakhs in the year 1998, but the father of said Rangaraj has been residing in that house and since, he has not vacated the same and hence, they have entered into a compromise and in that, it was agreed that the father of the complainant shall vacate the premises and the accused cannot entitled for further payment and in the year 2000 only, power deed has been cancelled. He would further submit that A3 and A4 have fabricated the sale agreement as if the same was executed on 01.06.2000, before the cancellation of the power of attorney and since the investigation is in initial stage, he prayed for the dismissal of the application. 6.Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and perusal of the case diary, the admitted facts are that Rangaraj and the defacto complainant Ramadoss are brothers and the brother of the defacto complainant Rangaraj has obtained loan from A1, the 2nd petitioner in Crl.O.p.(MD) No.11438 of 2011 from the year 1994 to 2000 to the tune of Rs.19 lakhs. As per the version of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, they repaid the amount to the tune of Rs.54 lakhs as interest for the year upto 1997. Since the said Rangaraj has sustained loss in his business, he was unable to repay the interest thereafter and hence, he sold the property in favour of A1 in the year 1998 along with his wife. The value of the property is Rs.35 lakhs and Rs.15 lakhs alone has been paid as cash and Rs.20 lakhs has been adjusted towards the interest for the loan obtained by him. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7.But, here, the document filed by the petitioners would show that the defacto complainant himself has executed the power of attorney on 15.12.1999 and they entered into a registered sale agreement on 01.06.2000 and hence, the case of prosecution that after cancellation of the power deed on 18.12.2000, the sale agreement has been fabricated on 01.06.2000 does not merits acceptance. Since the power deed has been cancelled on 18.12.2000, A3 has filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.228 of 2002 before the 3rd Assistant Sessions Judge, Madurai against the defacto complainant and his wife represented through their power agent and the suit was decreed on 22.04.2002 and as per the document No.4, on 11.02.2003, the Court has executed the sale deed in favour of A3 and then only, the defacto complainant himself has filed I.A.222 of 2008 to set aside the exparte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., and the same is pending. A3 has also filed a counter affidavit on 12.06.2008. 8.On perusal of the petition in I.A.No.222 of 2008, it has been stated that the sale agreement has been fabricated after cancellation of the power of deed on 18.12.2000. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the A3 has purchased the property through the Court of law on 11.02.2003. Even though, the defacto complainant herein has stated that they threatened the defacto complainant to withdraw the I.A.No.222 of 2008 in the year 2008, the complaint has been given only on 03.09.2011, after the period of three years. Hence, considering the delay in preferring the complaint and the sale deed has been executed through the Court of law and the power of attorney has been cancelled on 18.12.2000, but the sale agreement has been entered into between A3 and A4 on 01.06.2000, which is a registered document and this factum will clearly prove that the dispute is in civil nature. Hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 9. Accordingly, the petitioners/accused in both petitions are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai and on executing a separate 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 morning at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 10. The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 06/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, MADURAI. 2 -Do-Thro' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE MADURAI. 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANTI-LAND GRABBING CELL MADURAI RURAL, MADURAI, MADURAI DISTRICT. +1CC to MR.K.MUTHURAMALINGAM, Advocate SR.No.30121 +1CC to MR.S.KRISHNAN, Advocate SR.No.30146 akm/08.09.11 /4p-7c/ ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.11438 AND 11443 of 2011 Date :06/09/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/