Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/6515/2015allowed

Rajendran v. The Inspector Of Police

2015-09-16Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Sixteenth day of September Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.6515 of 2015 1 RAJENDRAN 2 S.DHANAPAL ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs.

STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, KARUR DISTRICT.

IN CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2015.

... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT M.SIVASAMY ... INTERVENOR For Petitioners : M/S.M.MITHUN Advocate For Respondent : MRS.S.PRABHA Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : No Appearance (MR.D.ANANDAN) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under sections 294(b), 381, 406, 417, 418, 420 and 506(i) of I.P.C., in Crime No.16 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused, who are partners in 15 partnership firms, along with the de-facto complainant has misappropriated Rs.75 lakhs and also had taken away valuable documents from the Finance Company.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are partners in a Finance Company and also the first petitioner was working as a Manager and he collected money from the debtors and also accounted the entire amount with the finance company. The de-facto complainant without disbursing the profit to the partners, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ attempted to take away the amount from the Finance Company and therefore, he lodged a complaint against the de-facto complainant, which is

registered against him in Crime No.523 of 2015 and also he did not disburse the share amount to the petitioners. Therefore, on 21.03.2015, a wordy quarrel arose between them and at 5.30 p.m., he broke open the lock and had taken away all the account books for which a case was registered against him in Crime No.523 of 2015 by the Inspector of Police, Karur Town Police Station and long after, the present complaint is given as a counter-blast.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the accused has taken away huge amount of Rs.75 lakhs from the Finance Company and therefore, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

5. This Court has granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners on 23.06.2015, while referring the matter to the Mediation Centre to explore the possibility of settlement.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to this Bench for four hearings, but the de-facto complainant has appeared before the Mediation Centre only on the last hearing and he wanted to get some money from the accused. Therefore, mediation could not succeed.

7. Considering the above, the interim anticipatory bail granted on 23.06.2015 is made absolute.

sd/- 16/09/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I,KARUR 2 -DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KARUR 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, KARUR DIST.

4 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S.M.MITHUN Advocate SR.No.54880 akm/21.09.2015 /2p-6c/ ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.6515 of 2015 Date :16/09/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/