R Arumugasamy v. State Rep By

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

The petitioners/A1 and A2 in Crime No.284 of 2023 registered by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 465, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of IPC seek anticipatory bail.

2. There are totally six accused. A1 and A2 are father and son. A5 and A6 are also father and son. A5 was an absconding accused in yet another FIR registered against him by the defacto complainant. The events in this particular offence are corollary to a complaint given by one Gowthami against the accused stating that she had been cheated of her immovable property worth more than Rs.4 Crores.

3. It is the specific case of the prosecution that a special report had been given by the Inspector of Police that during the course of enquiry by the said Inspector of Police, a notice has been served to one of the accused Alagappan and since he was absconding, the notice been affixed in his house. Thereafter, FIR in Cr.No.232 of 2023 had been registered

the accused therein were absconding. However, masquerading as the said Alagappan who was absconding, A3 appears to have gone over to the office of the Commissioner of Police and had lodged a complaint.

4. It is the specific case of the prosecution that A2 had transferred, on four or five occasions, a sum of Rs.60,000/- to A3 for this particular purpose.

5. Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioners stated that A1 was only waiting outside the Police Station and had nothing to do with the entire transaction. He further stated that A2 is a friend of A3 and that during the course of such friendship, amounts have been transferred between A2 and A3. It is stated that these petitioners have no knowledge about the nature of the offence or about an impersonator being arranged to lodge a complaint before the Commissioner of Police.

6. A counter also been filed on behalf of the respondent. It is

stated that C.C.TV Footage had been verified and it was found that Alagappan who was absconding, had never entered into the office of the Commissioner of Police and the impersonator to resembling the same height of Alagappan had gone over to the office of the Commissioner of Police and had lodged a complaint as if it had been lodged by the said Alagappan.

7. It also stated that the signatures of the accused differed from the signature of Alagappan. The said signatures had been forwarded for further examination by the forensic agency. It is also stated that A1 and A2/present petitioners herein had conspired with A3 and A4 who had gone over to the office of the Commissioner of Police and A4 had impersonated as A5 Alagappan and forged his signature in the petition as well as in the register maintained in the reception. So far as these petitioners are concerned, the transfer of money had been pointed out in the counter affidavit and around that crucial period of time, totally a sum of Rs.60,000/- had been transferred, in four separate instalments starting from 18.10.2023 and ending on 23.10.2023 within a period of five days

which is very proximate to the date on which the complaint was lodged namely on 20.10.2023. It is thus seen that further investigation will have to be done. The charges are very serious about impersonation of the complainant and handing over such a complaint to the office of the Commissioner of Police.

8. In view of the above facts, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Vv 24.01.2024 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

Vv 24.01.2024