BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Fifth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.11325 of 2011 1. DAVID PAUL, 2. MUTHULAKSHMI ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 & 4 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, TIRUNELVELI, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.30 OF 2011) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. S.PALANIVELAYUTHAM Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : MR.R.ANAND, INTERVENOR PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 465,468,471,420,384,506(i) and 120(b) IPC, in Crime No.30 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the bona fide purchasers of the property and originally, the property belongs to the de-facto complainant and his brother and both items are house properties and they are the landlords since there is a tenant problem, the de-facto complainant approached A1 who is the Inspector of Police and during the enquiry, A2 who is an Advocate, was called upon by A1 and the de-facto complainant was directed to execute the power of attorney in favour of A2 and in turn, A2 sold the property to A3 and A4 and they are the bona fide purchasers and a false case has been registered against the petitioners and hence, they pray for anticipatory bail. 3.The learned Counsel for the intervenor submits that the case has been registered on 18.08.2011 against four persons. A1 and A2 filed an application for anticipatory bail and the same is pending before the concerned District Court. He further submits that the property belongs to the de-facto complainant and her brother and they are the permanent residents of Hyderabad and the property is situated at Palayamkottai which was rented out to the tenant and there arose a problem between the tenant and the landlord; so that they approached the concerned police station where A1 is the Inspector of Police and the case has been registered. Then only A1 introduced A2 as an Advocate stating that to appoint A2 as power agent for dealing with the case since the de-facto complainant does not know Tamil language and they obtained the power of attorney with A3 so as to deal with the property. He further submits that A4 is none other than the wife of A2 and the first petitioner is a financier and he got the power of attorney to sell the property to A4 and hence, they are not the bona fide purchasers of the properties and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ case has been registered only on 18.08.2011 and the investigation is in earlier stage and hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) submits that the de-facto complainant belongs to Andhra Pradesh and she is a woman and she does not know Tamil language and hence, she approached A1 who is territorial jurisdiction Inspector of Police and he introduced the Advocate A2 for conducting the case and in turn, A2 received Rs.1,39,000/- from the de-facto complainant for conducting the case before the civil Court and also gave an undertaking to execute the power in favour of A2 and the de-facto complainant has not come to Palayamkottai and on that basis only, he fabricated the document and A2 sold the property to A3 and A4. A4 is the wife of A2 and the investigation is in earlier stage and hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 5.Considering the rival submissions made on both sides and on perusal of records, it is clear that the property is owned by the de- facto complainant and her brother and she is belonging to Andhra Pradesh and the property is situated at Palayamkottai, and that the properties are house properties which are in possession of the tenant and there was a dispute between the tenant and the landlord and she approached the Inspector of Police in the territorial jurisdiction. A2 is an Advocate for conducting the case. As per the version of learned Additional Public Prosecutor, she paid Rs.1,39,000/- on various dates for conducting the case. After she has executed a power of attorney to A2 she did not attend the Court in each and every time since she has not known Tamil, the power of attonrey has been executed on 07.03.2011 it is in vernacular language and not in English. But, the power has been executed for conducting the case on the basis that only A2 executed a sale deed in favour of A3 and A4, since the case has been registered only on 18.08.2011 and the investigation is in earlier stage and the petitioner is well aware of the earlier proceedings. Hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners and the same is dismissed. sd/- 05/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, TIRUNELVELI, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. 2. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. S.PALANIVELAYUTHAM Advocate SR.No.29930 SR : 08.09.2011 : 2p/4c ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11325 of 2011 Date :05/09/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/