S.Palani v. State Rep By

Reserved On 29.08.2023 Pronounced On RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 471, 468, 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.156 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant Palanivel has lodged a complaint before the respondent police on 13.10.2022 alleging that the accused A1 to A4 were introduced to the de-facto complainant as a real estate professionals and there are doing real estate business and with false hope that they will give him a share and to purchase a land, they convinced him to buy a plot in Rajakilpauk and on the such promise, he made Rs.25,00,000/- payment to them. However, they could not materialize. Subsequently, all these accused convinced the de-facto complainant to get an extent of 2,000 Sq.ft in Guduvancherry and also believing them, has settled to the extend of Rs.33,30,000/- in

their favour. They went for the registration to the SRO, Guduvancherry, where they told him that theses are forged documents and hence, he filed the above complaint. The petitioner is A2.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) stated that pursuance to the notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., A2 appeared before the respondent police and undertook to settle the amount, but he has not settled the amount. An earlier application for anticipatory bail moved by this petitioner before learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur is dismissed on 04.08.2023.

4. On perusal of the documents filed by the intervenor, I find that these accused has played a vital role in convincing the defacto complainant to invest Rs.25,00,000/- at the first instant and subsequently, another amount to the extent of Rs.33,30,000/- and on that promise to purchase of piece of land to the de-facto complainant has not been fructified. The matter is in the preliminary stage of investigation. The Sub-Registrar, Guduvancherry has alerted the de-facto complainant that the document papers prepared and given

by them for registration is bogus and fraudulent and thereby, the complaint came to into existence.

5. Since the matter is at the preliminary state and considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the overt act alleged against the petitioner having received such a huge amount of Rs.33,30,000/-, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

(1/2) mpl

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

mpl (1/2)