1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Thirtieth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.12956 of 2011 1.CHINNATHAL 2.SELVARAJ 3.VELUSAMY 4.RAMASAMY 5.LAKSHMI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1,2,4,5 & 8 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL, DINDIGUL DISTRICT, CRIME NO.68/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. D.VENKATESH Advocate For Respondent : MR. A. RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused Nos.1,2,4,5 and 8 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120(B) IPC, in Crime No.68 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 proeprty originally belongs to one Chinappa Gounder and he executed the settlement deed on 24.09.2007 in favour of his wife – the first petitioner, that after the demise of the husband of the first petitioner, the fifth petitioner who is the daughter of Chinappa Gounder executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioners 3 and 4 with the assistance of the second petitioner as if they are the owners of the property and that a false case has been registered on 22.09.2011. He would further submit that the de- facto complainant himself gave a complaint on 09.09.2011 in the same set of facts. After due investigation, the FIR is closed as mistake of fact and he further submitted that the de-facto complainant herein filed a suit inOS.No.69 of 2009 for the declaration of title and recovery of possession which was also dismissed, against which the appeal was preferred and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 same is pending and the petitioners 3 and 4 and another purchased the property from the first petitioner and filed a suit in OS.No.78 of 2009 for declaration of title and permanent injunction and the said suit has been decreed and no appeal is pending, since it is a civil matter and already the matter was referred as mistake of fact and he further submitted that now, taking advantage of the present scenario, the false case has been foisted against the petitioners and these petitioners are arrayed as A1,A2,A4,A5 and A8 and they are apprehending for arrest and hence they pray for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3.Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side) would submit that A1 fabricated the settlement deed in her name with the help of A2 and A3. A1 executed the sale deed in favour of A4 to A7 with the help of A8. He would further submit that A3, A6 and A7 were already arrested and remanded to judicial custody and the investigation is going on and hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 4.Considering the rival submissions made on both sides and on perusal of records, it is seen that the property belonged to one Chinappa Gounder who is none other than the husband of the first petitioner and that her husband executed a settlement deed on 24.09.2007, in pursuant of which she executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioners 3 and 4 and yet another accused. It is pertinent to note that on 09.09.2009, the de-facto complainant himself gave a complaint which was registered in Crime No.31 of 2009 under Sections 120(b), 419, 465, 468, 471 and 420 IPC and after the investigation it has been closed as mistake of fact on 15.02.2010. It is also pertinent to note that the de-facto complainant himself filed a suit in OS.No.69 of 2009 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Oddanchatram, for declaration of title and also for injunction and it was dismissed, against which the appeal is pending. Likewise, the purchasers/petitioners 3 and 4 along with one Hariramakrishnan and Natchimuthu filed a suit in OS.No.78 of 2009 for declaration and injunction and the same has been granted and subsequently, taking advantage of the present scenario, the present complaint was given on 22.09.2011. Considering the fact that already the same set of complaint given by the de-facto complainant was closed as mistake of fact and furthermore, the civil suit ended against him and the subsequent purchaser got the declaration of title over the property and considering the fact that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 dispute is civil in nature and that event though the petitioners were not arrested, they neither interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 5.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate -2, Dindigul 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 Judicial 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 petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously. 6.The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. sd/- 30/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.2, DINDIGUL 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL, DINDIGUL DISTRICT 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. D.VENKATESH Advocate SR.No.34416 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12956 of 2011 Date :30/09/2011 TR :11.10.2011: 3p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/