P.Perumal Thevar @ Chellachamy v. Balu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Nineteenth day of July Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.R.SWAMINATHAN CRL MP(MD) No.939 of 2018 IN CRL OP(MD) No.13767 of 2017 P.PERUMAL THEVAR @ CHELLACHAMY ... PETITIONER/3rd PARTY/ DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT Vs 1 BALU 2 B.ASHOKKUMAR 3 RANI 4 ABARNA ...RESPONDENT 1 to 4/PETITIONERS 1 to 4/ACCUSED 5 THE STATE REP BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE LAND GRABBING SPECIAL CELL, THENI IN CRIME NO.18/2015 ...5th RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents 1 to 4 in Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 13767 of 2017 dated 12.10.

2017 passed by this Honourable Court Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.D.MALAICHAMY, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.A.ROBINSON, Government Advocate (Crl.side) on behalf of the Respondent, the court made the following order:- The petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.18 of 2015. The case of the petitioner is that the property in question was assigned in his favour by the Government, some time in the year 1970. That the property stood in the name of the petitioner is not in doubt. While so, the allegation is that the first respondent herein namely, Balu, who is none other than the brother of the petitioner herein, impersonated the petitioner and created a forged power of attorney, on 30.10.

1995, in favour of the first respondent, who on the strength of the power of attorney, sold the same in favour of the second accused. Thereafter, a power of attorney was executed by the second accused in favour of the first respondent namely Balu / third accused. The petitioner's allegation is that he was induced to attest the said document.

2.Be that as if may, based on the said power of attorney a sale deed was executed in favour of the second respondent herein, who is none other than the son of the third accused. The other two accused, who are Rani and Abarna are women and wife of third and fourth accused, respectively.

3.The accused A3 to A6,seeking anticipatory bail, filed a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13767 of 2017 and this Court, by order dated 12.10.2017, granted them relief.

4.To cancel the said order this Miscellaneous Petition, has been filed by the defacto complainant. Even at the commencement, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant fairly submitted that he would not press this petition for cancellation as against the third and fourth respondents herein, namely, Rani and Abarna. The said submission is recorded.

5.When the matter was taken up on earlier occasions, this Court called upon the learned counsel for the accused 3 to 6 to produce the original power of attorney, dated 30.10.1995. 6.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the accused stated that he was not having power of attorney. They are not able to trace the same. 7.It appears that some documents have gone missing from the Court record also. The sequence of events is such that the needle of suspicion is directed against the respondents 1 and 2 herein. It is also stated that when the matter was heard, a submission was made by the Government counsel that the dispute between them is civil in nature. Probably swayed by this representation, anticipatory bail was granted. Be that as it may, a condition was imposed that the petitioners shall not tamper the evidence or witness during the investigation. But, in this case, such tampering of the evidence has obviously happened. The offences are grave in nature as there has been forgery and fabrication of records.

8.Therefore, the anticipatory bail granted in favour of the first and second respondents are cancelled and Accordingly, this Miscellaneous Petition is allowed in respect of the first and second respondents. As regards third and fourth respondents are concerned, this Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.

sd/- 19/07/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THENI 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THENI DISTRICT 3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE LAND GRABBING SPECIAL CELL, THENI 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. C.C. to M/S.D.MALAICHAMY Advocate SR.No.13581

ORDER

IN CRL MP(MD) No.939 of 2018 IN CRL OP(MD) No.13767 of 2017 Date :19/07/2018 SMA/RR/SAR-4/30.07.2018:3P/6c