BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Third day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.9795 of 2011 1 D.S.RAJAN 2 RUBY SOUNDARI 3 PREM ANAND 4 PREM CHANDAR 5 JEBA RAJAN ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1 TO 5 Vs STATE REP BY:: THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE UTHAPPANAICKANOOR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. ( CRIME NO.109 OF 2011 ) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT P. DAVID JAWAHAR ..INTERVENOR/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. R.ANAND Advocate For Respondent : MR. A. RAMAR, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR For Intervenor : Mr.K. Samidurai. Advocate 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 Sections 147, 341, 419, 420, 458, 471 and 506(ii) I.P.C., in Crime No.109 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The facts of the case is that the property to the extent of 22 acres is belonging to one David Farm and he is having eight sons and the property has been divided among the eight sons. The first petitioner was allotted to the extent of 2.5 acres. The defacto complainant's father was allotted 2.5 acres. The first petitioner has executed the sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant's wife in the year 2000. Admittedly, the defacto complainant, his wife and his father have purchased the other properties, which were allotted to other sharers. Therefore they are the owners of the 22 acres of the land and the said fact is not disputed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 1st petitioner entered into a sale agreement with the defacto complainant, his wife and his father in respect of purchase of 22 acres on 23.03.2011 for Rs.18 lakhs. He paid a sum of Rs.11 laksh as advance. The petitioners were in possession of the property and the same was interfered by one Veerannan and hence, the first petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.117 of 2007, before the file of the learned District Munsif, Usilampatti and obtained an exparte decree. Further since the defacto complainant attempted to interfere, he filed another suit in O.S.No.122 of 2009 for bare injunction, which is still pending. He further submitted that in the plaint itself, it has been stated that the sale agreement and payment of advance amount and since there was a difference of opinion, compromise has been arrived. As per the compromise, Rs.12 lakhs has been repaid by the defacto complainant to the petitioners. That factum has been accepted by the defacto complainant in his written statement filed in O.S.No.122 of 2009. Now the present complaint has been foisted against them on 19.07.2011 as if the sale agreement on 23.03.2011 was forged and unprecedented one. The investigation is considerably over and the issue is civil in nature and they apprehend for arrest and hence, he come forward with this application. 4. Refuting the same, the learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that they are the owners of the entire property by way of purchased from the first petitioner and other co-sharer. That factum is an admitted fact. He further submitted that the sale agreement dated 23.03.2011 is not a true document and the same are forged documents. He further submitted that two cases are pending against A5 in Crime Nos.487 of 2008 and 314 of 2009 under Sections 420 I.P.C. on the file of the Nunkambakkam Police Station. He further submit that one more complaint is pending against all the petitioners in Crime No.91 of 2011 in the same respondent police station. Since the petitioners have cheated the defacto complainant and created the forged documents, he prays for the dismissal of the application. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the first petitioner is the father and the second petitioner is the wife of the 1st petitioner and the petitioners 3 and 5 are the children of the petitioners 1 and 2. He would further submit that they fabricated the sale agreement as if the defacto complainant and his family members executed the sale agreement on 23.03.2011. He also created some document as if one Verannan has attempted to interfere with the possession of the property and hence, the first petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.NO.117 of 2007 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Usilampatti and obtained an exparte decree and then only, the defacto complainant has given a complaint on 19.07.2011 and the investigation is earlier stage and hence, he prays for the dismissal of this application. 6.Considering the submissions made by both sides as well as the documents produced before this Court, the admitted fact is that 22 acres are belonging to the grand father of the defacto complainant viz. David Farm and he is having eight sons and there was a partition and in that partition 2.5 acres has been allotted to each sharer. Admittedly, the first petitioner herein sold his share of 2.5 acres in favour of the wife of the defacto complainant on 21.01.2000. It is also an admitted fact that the defacto complainant, his wife and his father have purchased the share of the property of the other sharers. Therefore, they are the owners of the said 22 acres. The only dispute is that there was a sale agreement in favour of the first petitioner dated 23.03.2011. As per the version of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the document has been executed by the defacto complainant, his wife and his father. But they disputed the same that there are fabricated and forged documents. 7.Admittedly, the previous civil proceedings have been filed by the first petitioner against one Veerannan and he obtained the exparte decree and subsequently, he filed another suit in O.S.No.122 of 2009 before the learned District Munsif, Usilampatti, for bare injunction. In the copy of the plaint in O.S.No.122 of 2009, it was stated in paragraph No.9 that compromise has been arrived between the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ parties and as per the compromise, the defacto complainant herein has paid a sum of Rs.12 lakhs to the first petitioner and he agreed to repay the balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs and that factum has been admitted by the defacto complainant in his written statement. 8.In such circumstances, since the civil suits are pending, that can be worked out before the civil forum. However, the case has been registered for the offence under sections 147, 341, 419, 420, 458, 471 and 506(ii) I.P.C., I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions. 9. 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 No.I, Usilampatti 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall report before the Court concerned daily twice, i.e. 10.30 a.m. and 5.30 p.m. until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously. 10. 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/- 03/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE. NO.II, USILAMPATTI 2 DO THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI 3 THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT MADURAI 4 THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, UTHAPPANAICKANOOR POLICE STATIONMADURAI DIST. 1. CC to M/S. R.ANAND Advocate SR.No.25994 1CC TO MR. K. SAMIDURAI, ADVOCATE, SR: 25800: DM::2011:AUGUST:05:: ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.9795 of 2011 Date :03/08/2011 4P:7C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/