Mohanan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Eighteenth day of January Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) Nos.21091 and 21453 of 2015 1 MOHANAN 2 SUGANDHI 3 KALAI SANTHI 4 SAHAYA MALLIKA @ MALLIKA ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 TO 5 in CRL OP(MD)No.21091 of 2015 RAJKUMAR ..PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 in CRL OP(MD)No.21453 of 2015 Vs.
STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, KANYAKUMARI, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.
CR.NO. 64/15 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT in Both the Petitions For Petitioners in Both the Petitions : M/S A.HAJA MOHIDEEN Advocate For Respondent in Both the Petitions : MR.K.ANBARASAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor in Both the Petitions : MR.P.PARANTHAMAN, Advocate PETITIONS FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 5, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 419,465 and 420 of IPC in Crime No.64 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the property in question belonged to the petitioners / A1 to A5 and the petitioners / A2 to A5 appointed A1 as their power agent to deal with the property. A1 for himself and on behalf of A2 to A5 entered into an agreement of sale on 26.08.2010 with defacto complainant to sell the property for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- and received Rs.75,000/- as
advance. Subsequently, by impersonating the defacto complainant and forging his signature, on 05.03.2012, cancelled the agreement of sale dated 26.08.2010. On complaint a case has been registered against the petitioners.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the property originally belonged to one Dass and the petitioners / A1 to A5 inherited the same. Already, there is a dispute between the Forest Department and the said Dass. After his death, the petitioners were not able to conduct the case. The defacto complainant agreed to pursue the matter, on behalf of the petitioners and the agreement of sale was entered into between the petitioners and the defacto complainant on 26.08.2010. Subsequently, the defacto complaint informed the petitioners that he could not pursue the matter and on such representation, the petitioners appointed A6 as their power agent. A6 and defacto complainant mutually cancelled the agreement dated 26.08.2010.
Subsequently, A6 pursued the civil proceedings and conducted the second appeal and the second appeal ended in favour of the petitioners. On coming to know this fact the defacto complainant has given a false complaint after three years of the cancellation of the agreement of sale. The first petitioner issued notice to the defacto complainant. After that, the defacto complainant did not take any steps. subsequently, A3 issued notice to the defacto complainant and A1. But, they did not come forward to execute the sale deed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD).No.21091 of 2015 submitted that the petitioners / A2 to A5 have nothing to do with the transaction and they appointed A1 as their power agent and subsequently, appointed A6 as their power agent. A1 and A6 only actively participated on behalf of the petitioners and cancelled the sale deed dated 26.08.2010 on 05.03.2012.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that A1 in collusion with A6 by impersonating the defacto complainant cancelled the agreement of sale dated 26.08.2010 and appointed A6 as their power agent and committed offence. The learned counsel reiterated the averments made in the complaint and submitted that the petitioners impersonated the defacto complainant and cancelled the agreement of sale and committed the criminal offence and therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioners are necessary. He further submitted that the person who impersonated the defacto complainant is yet to be found out and therefore, prayed for dismissal of these Criminal Original Petitions.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that this Court by order dated 04.11.2015 has already granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners / A2 to A5 till 23.11.2015. He further submitted this is a civil dispute and the investigation is pending.
7. Considering the fact that the alleged impersonation has taken place in the year 2012 and that the complaint was given in the year 2015 and that the petitioners 2 to 5 have already appointed A1 as their power agent to deal with the property owned by the A2 to A5, the interim anticipatory bail already granted to the petitioners in
Crl.O.P(MD). No.21091 of 2015 dated 04.11.2015 is made absolute. However the first petitioner / A2 in Crl.O.P(MD).No.21091 of 2015 alone shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 am until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.
8. Considering the nature of serious allegations made against the petitioner / A1, the petition in Crl.O.P(MD).No.21453 of 2015 is dismissed.
sd/- 18/01/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II KULITHURAI 2 -DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT AT NAGERCOIL.
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, KANYAKUMARI, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.
4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+2CC to M/S A.HAJA MOHIDEEN Advocate SR.Nos.2556 and 2557 +2CC to MR.P.PARANTHAMAN, Advocate Sr.Nos.2836 and 2837 akm/04.02.2016/ 3p- 9c/jgb/dp/SAR-I
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.21091 and 21453 of 2015 Date :18/01/2016