BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twentieth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.11861 of 2011 V.SEENIVASA RAGHAVAN : PETITIONER/ACCUSED-6 Vs. 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE THENI DISTRICT POLICE, THENI. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THENI DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THENI POLICE SUPERINTENDENT OFFICE, THENI DISTRICT. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THENI DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THENI POLICE SUPERINTENDENT OFFICE, THENI DISTRICT. : RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS For Petitioner : M/S. C.M.GANESAN 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 petitioner/Accused No.6 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420,465,468,471,294(b),447 and 506(ii) IPC, in Crime No.50 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the bonafide purchaser from A4 and a false case has been foisted against the petitioner under Sections 420,465,468, 471,294(b),447 and 506(ii) IPC, in Crime No.50 of 2011 and the same has been registered on 16.08.2011. He would further submit that the alleged occurrence took place prior to 23.12.2007 and on 04.07.2011, a complaint was given by one Rajeswari and the petitioner is shown as A6 and the de-facto complainant submits that she purchased the property i.e. 80 cents in Survey No.254/1 from A4 under the sale deed dated 29.01.1999 and the petitioner is nothing to do with the commission of the alleged offence and the false case has been foisted. After the purchase, mutation of revenue records has been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ made and it is a civil dispute and the case has been registered against six accused and A1 and A4 were arrested and enlarged on bail and the investigation is considerably over and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3. Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) would submit that the case has been registered against six persons, A1 to A3 fabricated the document as if they are the real owners of the property as though they purchased the property from Krishnan and they executed a power of attorney in favour of A4. A1 and A5 sold the property to A6 without any valid title. The de-facto complainant purchased the property from the legal heirs of Karuppan Chettiar namely Duraipandi and Natarajan in the year 1997 and A6 purchased the property from A4 and A5 and the investigation is pending and hence he prays for dismissal of the petition. 4. The learned Counsel for the intervenor would submit that the de-facto complainant has purchased the property from one Karuppan Chettiar and his legal representatives of Sangaman Chettiar, Alagu Chettiar and Chokkalinga Chettiar. The said Chokkalinga Chettiar has no issues and Sangam Chettiar have two issues namely Natarajan and Duraipandian. In the year 1997, the de-facto complainant obtained the power of attorney from the Duraipandian and Natarajan. After the year 2002, the patta was changed in the name of the de- facto complainant and in the year 2007, A6 obtained the joint patta along with the de-facto complainant. Hence, the de-facto complainant filed an application to cancel the joint patta before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer cancelled the joint patta standing in the name of A6/petitioner herein. Then only the petitioner filed the petition before the Public Information Officer, Theni and obtained information that the property in Survey No.254/1 was not belonging to Alagarsamy and hence, a complaint was given. Hence, he threatened the de-facto complainant and the case was filed in Crime No.269 of 2011 on 27.08.2011 before the Allinagaram Police Station stating that one of the sons-in-law threatened. On 06.09.2011, the case was registered in Crime No.83 of 2011 and now he is tampering the witnesses and hence, the petitioner apprehends for arrest and hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. Considering the rival submissions made on three sides as well as the documents filed before this Court, it is seen that the petitioner herein purchased the property from A4 and A5. A1 to A3 executed the power of attorney in favour of A4. A1 to A3 sold 16 Cents to A5. Now, the de-facto complainant claimed his right through Karuppan Chettiar, but whereas A6 is claiming title through one Alagammal and Subbammal and there is a property dispute. As per the version of the de-facto complainant, in the year 2007 only, he came to know about the change of patta in the name of the petitioner. Then only, the Revenue Divisional Officer cancelled the patta. Thereafter, only a complaint was given and subsequently, a serious complaint registered on 27.08.2011 against the petitioner and even though a serious complaint have been filed and the investigation agency has not taken any steps to arrest the petitioner herein not producing the title documents and only on the basis of information obtained by the de-facto complainant from the Public Information Officer and he came to know that the predecessor title A6 has no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ right over the property. Even though the petitioner was not arrested he neither interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction. Hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam and on his 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 petitioner 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, anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. Sd/- 20/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, UTHAMPALAYAM. 2. -DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THENI DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE THENI DISTRICT POLICE, THENI. 4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THENI DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THENI POLICE SUPERINTENDENT OFFICE, THENI DISTRICT. 5. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THENI DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THENI POLICE SUPERINTENDENT OFFICE, THENI DISTRICT. 6. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1 CC to M/S. C.M.GANESAN Advocate SR.No.32185 +1 CC to M/S. VEERA KATHIRAVAN Advocate SR.No.32193 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11861 of 2011 Date :20/09/2011 NSV/23.9.11/3P/9C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/