BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Sixteenth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.10631 of 2011 1. SATHAIAH 2. SARAVANA DEVI ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 & 2 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THONDI POLICE STATION, RAMANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. CR NO. 130/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. D.BALAMURUGAPANDI Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) 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 offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C., in Crime No.130 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners have entered into a sale agreement with the defacto complainant for a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- on receipt of Rs.1,25,000/- as an advance amount. Since A1 and A2 have refused to execute the sale deed, the defacto complainant has given a complaint against the petitioners. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are arrayed as A1 and A2 and they are the husband and wife. He further submitted that the petitioners have not executed any sale agreement with the defacto complainant and they have not received any amount. He further submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case and hence, they have come forwarded with the present petition for anticipatory bail. 4. Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that A1 and A2 are the husband and wife and they are doing real estate business. He further submitted that the petitioners have entered into a sale agreement with the defacto complainant for a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- on receipt of Rs.1,25,000/- as an advance amount. He further submitted that neither they have executed the sale agreement nor repaid the amount and hence, a complaint has been given and a case has been registered. He further submitted that the investigation is an initial stage and hence, he prays for the dismissal of this application. 5. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and perused the materials available on record. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. Admittedly, A1 is the owner of the property and A2 is the wife of A1. The petitioners have entered into a sale agreement with the defacto complainant for a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- on receipt of Rs.1,25,000/- as an advance amount. As per the version of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, since they have refused to execute the sale deed and also they have not paid the advance amount, a case has been registered. Since it is a case of execution of sale deed or return of advance amount, there is a specific provisions for filing the suit for specific performance and for refund of advance amount. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also considering the fact that since it is a civil matter, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions. 8. 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 cum District Munsif Court, Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram District 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 Judicial Magistrate cum District Munsif Court, Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram District 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. 9. The petitioners shall appear before the Judicial Magistrate cum District Munsif Court, Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram District 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/- 16/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CUM DISTRICT MUNSIF JUDGE, THIRUVADANAI, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. -DO- THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE RAMANATHAPURAM. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THONDI POLICE STATION, RAMANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. D.BALAMURUGAPANDI Advocate SR.No.31761 SR : 20.09.2011 : 2p/6c ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.10631 of 2011 Date :16/09/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/