BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Ninth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.14609 of 2011 1. C.JAIGANESH 2. J.SUDHA : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Vs. 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE THENI DISTRICT. 2. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SPECIAL CELL FOR LAND GRABBING CASES, THENI. (CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN) : RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. VEERA KATHIRAVAN Advocate For Respondent : Mr. K.S.DURAIPANDIAN Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC , in unknown Crime Number of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side). 3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are the owners of the disputed property and they have entered into an agreement with the de facto complainant to execute a sale deed. A sum of Rs.26,000/- was paid by the de facto complainant as advance. Even though the time stipulated for execution of agreement expired on 12.02.2011, the de facto complainant has not come forward to pay the remaining amount. If for any reason the de facto complainant wants the property by paying the remaining sum of Rs.13 lakhs and odd, it is for them to file a specific performance suit within the time stipulated in the Limitation Act. He would further submit that the petitioners had issued a legal notice to the de facto complainant informing their intention to return the advance amount and get back the sale agreement. It was replied by the de facto https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ complainant that she wants the property or a sum of Rs.30 lakhs as repayment including the surveyor charges and others. It was not done by the petitioners. If for any reason, the petitioners want to emphasis the allegations made in the reply notice, that is to be done only before the civil court and not by giving a criminal complaint, since there is no element of criminality in the said complaint. The petitioners are always ready to abide any conditions likely to be imposed by this Court for grant of anticipatory bail. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that petitioners have received a sum of Rs.26 lakhs as advance in order to sell the property to the de facto complainant. But they have breached the said agreement in order to deceive and cheat the de facto complainant and there is a clear case of criminal breach of trust and therefore, there is a likelihood of registering the case. He would further submit that if for any reason, the case is registered by the police, the petitioners have to be interrogated for the purpose of investigation and in such circumstances, their presence is necessary. If for any reason, the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, at the enquiry stage, suitable conditions may be imposed for securing their presence. 5.I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on both sides. I could see that the petitioners and the de facto complainant have entered into an agreement for sale in respect of a disputed property for a sum of Rs.45,22,000/- and a sum of Rs.26 lakhs was paid towards advance and sale consideration and the remaining amount is yet to be paid by the de facto complainant for the completion of sale deed. Though the petitioners have sent a notice to the de facto complainant to take back the amount paid by them, there was a reply notice sent by the de facto complainant stating that he has to comply with the conditions of sale agreement. On a careful consideration of notice and reply notice and allegations of both sides, I could see that a case for specific performance to be filed in between the parties for revocation of advance and damages and other reliefs. However the de facto complainant has given a complaint and it is pending enquiry before the respondent police and it is yet to be registered. 5. Under the said circumstances, this Court, on an earlier occasion passed an order of not to arrest and informed the court about the registration of the complaint. However, till today, there is no registration of complaint. Even if the complaint is registered, if for any reason, I could see that the main dispute in between the parties relates to a civil dispute. If there is any criminality is attached, it has to be found during the course of preliminary enquiry or after registering the case. In these circumstances, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with the following conditions: i) 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, Theni and each of them shall execute 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, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ii) that the petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required. iii) The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. iv) 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/- 29/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THENI. 2. -DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THENI DISTRICT. 3. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE THENI DISTRICT. 5. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SPECIAL CELL FOR LAND GRABBING CASES, THENI. +1 CC to M/S. VEERA KATHIRAVAN Advocate SR.No.41820 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14609 of 2011 Date :29/11/2011 NSV/30.11.11/3P/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/