T.Yuvaraj v. Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Sixth day of May Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M. NIRMAL KUMAR CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.12408 of 2022 T.YUVARAJ [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE T10- THIRUMULLAIVOYAL POLICE STATION, THIRUMULLAIVOYAL, CHENNAI-62, CRIME NO.379/2022.

For Petitioner : M/S.PRADEEP JAYARAMAN Advocate For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervenor : M/S V.S.SENTHILKUMAR Advocate For Mediator : M/S ARUN ANBUMANI Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 341 & 506 (i) of IPC and section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 in Crime No.379 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the present secretary of VGN Stafford Flat Owners Welfare Association. The de-facto complainant Mrs.Vijayalakshmi is the wife of one (*)Ravishanker, who is the erstwhile Secretary of the said Association. There is some dispute with regard to the association maintenance work. According to the petitioner, after taking over the Secretaryship of the association, running the association with harmony in co-operation with all its members. There are around 1,000 members in the said association, who are residing in the gated community, which encompasses 23 acres of land. The erstwhile Secretary used to close the water valves to the residences, giving priority of his own choice. Further, he was also taking sites with

the promoter builder, which is detrimental to the association members, which was questioned by the petitioner. On 19.09.2021, it was found that the de-facto complainant's husband closed the water valves which is recorded in the CCTV coverage and the same was questioned by the petitioner, hence, in aggressive, erstwhile secretary (*)Ravishanker brought his wife and lodged a complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially, the respondent police conducted enquiry, advised both the petitioner and the de-facto complainant to compromise finding that the dispute is among the residences of the apartment. Later, the defacto complainant managed to get First Information Report registered to cause harassment. He further submitted that the petitioner filed a Civil Suit against the promoter and builder for charging unreasonable maintenance charges and the same is pending before the High Court Commercial Division.

4. Mr.V.Senthilkumar, learned counsel appearing for the de-facto complainant submitted that the petitioner herein is the present secretary of the association to brook vengeance, the petitioner is creating trouble to the de-facto complainant's group members. The petitioner's allegation that the husband of de-facto complainant switched off and dis-connected the water valve and giving trouble to the association members, is totally denied. Further, though the occurrence took place on 19.09.2021, the petitioner managed with the police and hence, the police not registered the FIR. Thereafter, the petitioner made a challenge with the de-facto complainant, that no F.I.R can be registered against him, as they are powerful persons and all the members of the association will abide by their dictum.

Subsequently, the de-facto complainant filed a petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C before the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur. Even thereafter, the respondent police failed to take any action. Hence, the de-facto complainant filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.10080 of 2022 and thereafter, on the direction of this Court, First Information Report came to be registered.

5. The learned Government Advocate (crl. side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the F.I.R registered and investigation is at the initial stage. It is a dispute among the association members of the above said apartments.

6. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsels, this Court is inclined to give anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days. In the event of failure of Mediation, and Mediator informing the petitioner about the same. The sureties to be executed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambatur, on condition that

the petitioners shall execute 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that: [a] the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.

[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. [f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

8. Further, finding that it is a dispute among the residence of the apartments, the issue could be resolved and hence, this Court is inclined to appoint a Mediator to resolve the dispute between the parties.

9. Accordingly, Mr.Arun Anbumani, learned counsel, is appointed as a Mediator. The petitioner as well as the de-facto complainant's Husband and VGN Property Developers are directed to participate in the mediation on 10.06.2022 and resolve the dispute amicably.

10. VGN Property Developers is directed to participate in the mediation since the Developers are charging Rs.4/- per square feet, which they are not entitled to.

11. The Mediator fairly submits that the Director of VGN Property Developers is residing in the same locality of the Mediator's residence, other than that, he is not having any connection with them.

12. It is made clear that the petitioner and de-facto complainant has no objection for appointing Mr. Arun Anbumani, as Mediator.

-sd/- 26/05/2022 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

(*) CORRECTED COPY TO BE ISSUED FOR THE ORDER ALREADY DESPATCHED ON 03/06/2022 TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AMBATTUR 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THIRUVALLUR(FOR INFORMATION) 3 INSPECTOR OF POLICE T10- THIRUMULLAIVOYAL POLICE STATION, THIRUMULLAIVOYAL, CHENNAI 62.

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

5 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TAMIL NADU MEDIATION AND CONCILATION CENTER, HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

6 MR.ARUN ANBUMANI, NO.IV HIGH COURT CHAMBER, HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT, CHENNAI 600 104.

CC to M/S.PRADEEP JAYARAMAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.12408/2022 Date :26/05/2022 RVR 01/06/2022 RVR 06/06/2022