1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty First day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.12113 of 2011 1.SELVAMANI 2.SURYA ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 & 3 1.KAMAKSHI AMMAL 2.DHARMARAJ ... INTERVENORS Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. CR.NO. 54/2011. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. R.MAHESWARAN Advocate For Intervenors: MR. P.SATHISH MURUGAN, Advocate for M/S HINDU ASSOCIATES 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. 2 and 3 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(b),465,468,471,420,294(b) and 506(ii) I.P.C. in Crime No.54 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 case has been registered on the basis of complaint given by one T.Dharmaraj on 26.08.2011 in Crime No.54 of 2011 under Sections 120(b),465,468,471,420,294 (b) and 506(ii) I.P.C. He would further submit that the property is originally owned by one Kamatchiammal and she purchased the same under a registered sale deed and she is having four sons and one daughter. The said Kamatchiammal executed the settlement deed in favour of Vijayakandipan and she died intestate and they executed the sale deed on 23.09.2010 to A1 who is the husband of A2. A3 is the son of A1 and A2. A2 is the bona fide purchaser and on the basis of false complaint given by the T.Dharmaraj the case has been registered and hence, they pray for enlargement on anticipatory bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.Refuting the same, the learned Counsel for the intervenor would submit that even though the settlement deed executed, has been revoked and there is no mutation of revenue records in pursuance of settlement deed, the patta transferred in the name of T.Dharmaraj. The petitioners herein gave a representation for change of patta, but it was dismissed against which they preferred a revision which was also dismissed. After registration of the case, A1 was arrested and A2 and A3 made a criminal intimidation against the de-facto complainant. Hence he prays for dismissal of this petition. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) would submit that the complainants Kamatchiammal and T.Dharmaraj gave a complaint stating that the petitioners encroached the Coconut grove without having any valid title. Even though the said Kamatchiammal executed the settlement deed in favour of Vijayakandipan, subsequently cancelled and thereafter, she executed the settlement deed in favour of T.Dharmaraj. A1 and A3 threatened the de-facto complainant and A1 is a history- sheeted rowdy and he was arrested and the investigation is going on and hence, he prays for dismissal of this petition. 5.Considering the rival submissions made by both sides, it is seen that admittedly, the property is owned by Kamatchiamml who is the second complainant mentioned in the FIR and admittedly, she executed the settlement deed in favour of one Vijayakandipan, her elder son, on 14.07.2006. The said Kamatchiammal is having four sons and one daughter. Vijayakandipan died and his legal heirs namely the wife and children executed the sale deed on 25.09.2010 in favour the accused and the second petitioner who is the son of A3. 6.The learned Counsel for the intervenor would submit that the settlement deed has been cancelled and no document has been filed, but it is a well settled proposition of law that the revenue records shall not confer title to the property. 7.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the said Kamatchiammal executed the settlement deed in favour of T.Dharmaraj, one of the de-facto complainant and that title deed has not been produced before this Court. Furthermore, O.S.No.28 of 2011 has been filed by Kamatchiammal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 and T.Dharmaraj for declaration of title and for injunction and the said suit is also pending. The petitioners A2 and A3 filed a written statement in O.S.No.28 of 2011 and contested the same. Since the de-facto complainant claimed title and even though they have not filed any documents to prove the title and he filed only the revenue records, but the petitioners herein filed a settlement deed dated 14.07.2006. It is only a civil dispute. Even though the petitioners were not arrested, they neither interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction. Hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A2 and A3 with certain conditions. 8.Accordingly, the petitioners/A2 and A3 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.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/A2 and A3 shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioners/A2 and A3 shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 9. 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, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 21/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.2, DINDIGUL 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL 3 THE INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL DISTRICT 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. R.MAHESWARAN Advocate SR.No.32860 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12113 of 2011 Date :21/09/2011 TR : 23.09.2011: 3p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/