Gandeepan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Seventh day of August Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.6185 of 2015 1 GANDEEPAN 2 NIVETHA 3 MATHANKUMAR 4 KAVITHA ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO. 1TO4 GOPAL ... INTERVENOR Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE GUDALUR SOUTH POLICE STATION, THENI DIST, CRIME NO.43 2015 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.B.BRIJESH KISHORE Advocate For Respondent : Mrs.S.Prabha, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : Mr.Gopal, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as A1 to A4 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under sections 120(B), 420, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC, in Crime No.43 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that on 21.07.2014 the de-facto complainant had entered into an agreement of sale with A1 for a sale consideration of Rs.30,10,001/- and paid Rs.50,001/- as advance and thereafter, the accused conspired together and received Rs.6,00,000/- from the de-facto complainant on the assurance that they would register the house property in his favour, but failed to keep up their words. 3.

It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the intervenor that the dispute between the accused and the de-facto complainant has been settled before the mediation on 31.07.2015 and as per agreement, the accused also paid Rs.5,50,000/- to the de-facto complainant by way of Demand Draft on 29.07.2015.

4.It is seen from the mediation report that the de-facto complainant received the D.D and also agreed to withdraw the complaint against the petitioners. Both the de-facto complainant and his counsel have signed in the memo.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent.

6.In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the respondent shall drop further action on the petitioners. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.

sd/- 07/08/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE GUDALUR SOUTH POLICE STATION, THENI DIST 2 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S.B.BRIJESH KISHORE Advocate SR.No.45094 Sm:AMF:SAR I:13.08.2015:2P/4C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.6185 of 2015 Date :07/08/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/