M.P.Adimoolam v. Veerasamy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 25.01.2023 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Crl.M.P.No.13946 of 2022 in Crl.O.P.No.9717 of 2021 M.P.Adimoolam ...petitioner Vs.

1.M.Veerasamy 2.The Station House Officer, Mettupalayam Police Station, Mettupalayam Puducherry-605 009.

Crime No.185 of 2020

...Respondent

PRAYER : Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Section 439(2) of Criminal Procedure Code praying to cancel the bail granted to the 1st respondent/3rd accused vide order dated 27.05.2021 in Crl.O.P.No.9717 of 2021.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Arunkumar For R1 : Mr.K.Gandhi Kumar For R2 : Mr.K.S.Mohandass Additional Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) 1/6

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner/defacto complainant seeking to cancel the bail granted to the 1st respondent/3rd accused vide order dated 27.05.2021 in Crl.O.P.No.9717 of 2021.

2. According to the defacto complainant, he was the owner of the property in question, which was brought on public sale. In the public auction, the 1st accused purchased the property and subsequently the same was confirmed in her favour in the year 2015. On such purchase, the 1st accused had leased out the property in favour of the 3rd accused herein in the year 2015. While so, in the year 2020, the defacto complainant has filed private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry in Crl.M.P.No.9284 of 2019 and based on the direction issued vide order dated 27.11.2020, the case in Crime No.185 of 2020 came to be registered against the accused Nos.1 to 3.

3. Upon registration of the case, the 3rd accused has filed the instant Crl.O.P.No.9717 of 2021 seeking anticipatory bail. This Court granted 2/6

anticipatory bail subject to certain conditions. Seeking to cancel the anticipatory bail so granted, the defacto complainant has come forward with this petition.

4. This petition has been filed by the defacto complainant mainly on the ground that the 3rd accused is carrying out business in the property in question without obtaining any licence. In support of this plea the defacto complainant placed reliance on the reply given by the Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act.

5. On the other hand, the 3rd accused/2nd respondent herein has filed the counter affidavit specifically contending that in view of the repeated complaints given by the defacto complainant against him, he could not peacefully run the business. In any event, the 3rd accused/2nd respondent herein is complying with the conditions imposed by this Court while granting anticipatory bail. The present petition has been filed only to harass him. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of this petition. 3/6

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the first respondent as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the 2nd respondent.

7. It is no doubt true that the 3rd accused/2nd respondent herein is complying with the conditions imposed by this Court while granting anticipatory bail to him and it is also not disputed by the petitioner/defacto complainant. The present petition has been filed by the defacto complainant on the specious plea that the 3rd accused is running the business in the leasehold premises without obtaining any licence. Such a plea on the part of the petitioner/defacto complainant is not a ground for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the first respondent/accused.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed.

25.01.2023 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order gbi 4/6

To 1.The Station House Officer, Mettupalayam Police Station, Mettupalayam Puducherry-605 009.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

gbi 25.01.2023 6/6