Mahesan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 06/03/2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN 1.Mahesan 2.Paramasivam 3.Thirilogasundar 4.Kumaresan ... Petitioners / Accused No.2,4,6 & 7 Vs 1.State rep by The Inspector of Police, Rayappanpatti Police Station, Theni District.

... 1st Respondent 2.Natarajan ... 2nd Respondent / Petitioners For Petitioners : Mr.S.Muniyandi, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- To enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the first respondent police on the strength of the NBW issued in C.C.No.165 of 2007 on the file of the learned District Consumer Forum, Theni.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A2, A4, A6 & A7, apprehend arrest at the hands of the second respondent based on the Non-Bailable Warrant issued by the District Consumer Redressal Forum in E.A.No.89 of 2008 in C.C.No.165 of 2007, dated 18.01.2023 seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the respondent had deposited Rs.2,50,000/- for a period of three years with the first accused firm, in which, the petitioners are the partners based on the undertaking by the petitioners along with A1 that they will pay 24% interest per annum and the refund was at the option of the respondent and on 01.10.2005, the respondent withdrew Rs.50,000/- and again on 02.01.2006 withdrew Rs.50,000/- from the accused 1/3

persons. The balance deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- remained with the accused. The accused had paid interest upto 06.05.2006 and thereafter, they failed to pay the interest or refund the balance amount. In spite of repeated demands made by the respondent, the accused committed deficiency of service. Therefore, the de-facto complainant filed a private complaint under Section 12(1) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Disputes Rederessal Forum, Theni in Consumer Complaint No.165 of 2007 and the same was allowed on 29.02.2008 by directing directed the petitioners and others to refund the deposited amount worth about Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondent along with the interest till the realization of the amount.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the said private complaint filed by the respondent is not at all maintainable and thereby, the petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.1983 of 2008 and the same was disposed of by directing the petitioners to approach the District Consumer Forum with all the grounds raised in the writ petition. Subsequently, the petitioners have approached the Redressal Forum and the District Consumer Redressal Forum has not considered the petitioners' grievance and has passed order as against the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the District Consumer Forum before the State Consumer Forum, Madurai with delay.

The delay petition was taken by the State Consumer Forum and issued notice to the respondents herein. In the meantime, the second respondent filed an execution application before the District Consumer Forum in E.A.No.89 of 2008 in C.C.No.165 of 2007. The petitioners appeared before the District Consumer Forum regarding the appeal pending before the State Consumer Forum. But the District Consumer Forum has not considered the appeal pending before the State Consumer Forum and issued Non-Bailable Warrant as against the petitioners and others.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners undertake that the petitioners shall appear before the Court below regularly on all future hearing dates, without fail.

5.Considering the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are directed to appear before the learned * Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, Theni District on the next hearing and to file a petition under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C., to recall NBW already issued against him. On the filing of such petition, the concerned learned Magistrate is directed to consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with law and pass orders on the same day.

6.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. It is made clear that while considering the petition to recall, the Court below shall bear in mind about the period of Non 2/3

Bailable Warrant and any crime committed while pending Non Bailable Warrant. Mere direction issued by this Court to consider the application on the same day does not amount to direction to consider the recall petition favourably.

sd/- 06/03/2023 (*) AMENDED AS PER ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED 20.04.2023 IN CRL MP (MD) NO.6303 OF 2023 IN CRL OP(MD) NO.3850 OF 2023 TWO WEEKS TIME IS EXTENDED TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THIS COURT.

/ TRUE COPY / /05/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

SJI To TO BE SUBSTITUTED WITH THE ORDER DATED 03/03/2023 ALREADY DESPATCHED 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, Theni District.

2.Do throgh the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theni District.

3.The President, District Consumer Forum, Theni.

4.The Inspector of Police, Rayappanpatti Police Station, Theni District.

5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+2 CC to M/S.MUNIYANDI.S Advocate SR.No.6196 and 6197(I), dated 20/04/2023

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.3850 of 2023 Date :06/03/2023 ED/BUC/SAR-3 (17/03/2023) 3P 5C ED/CG/SAR-1 (02/05/2023) 3P 8C 3/3