Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/17992/2017dismissed

P.Oliver, v. The Inspector Of Police,

2018-01-30Honourable Mr Justice R. Pongiappan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Thirtieth day of January Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.17992 of 2017 1 P.OLIVER 2 PARTHASARTHY ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1,2 Vs 1 THE STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAJAKKAMANGALAM BRANCH, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

CRIME NO.315 OF 2017.

2 C.R.SREESUBHA ... RESPONDENTS(COMPLAINT) For Petitioners : M/S.K.RAMAMURTHY Advocate For 1ST Respondent : MR.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI, Government Advocate ( Crl. Side) For 2nd Respondent : MR.S.RAMAKRISHNAN FOR MR.D.CHISTENSON JUGUNU, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/A1 and A2, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 294(b) and 506(i) I.P.C., in Crime No.315 of 2017, seeking relief to grant of anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant has searched a job. At that time the petitioners, who are executive officer and senior advisor of Prompt Multi State Co-operative House Building Society have informed the defacto complainant that there is a vacancy for the post of Manager at Attoor Branch, for that job, the defacto complainant has to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as security deposit and Rs.25,000/- as fixed deposit in Co-operative House Building Society Ltd.. The petitioners after collecting the funds, cheated the poor public and also committed mal practice. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent police. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

implicated in this case. The petitioners herein have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail.

4. Upon considering the arguments advanced by either side, it is alleged that during the time of occurrence the petitioners herein after making false promise as they will provide job to the defacto complainant had received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. As agreed by the petitioners, a job was not provided to the defacto complainant. Further the amount, which was received by the petitioners, is also not repaid to the defacto complainant. Hence, for recovering the cheated amount and for completing the investigation. At this stage, objection is filed by the defacto complainant to the effect that so far, no amount was recovered. So considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to extend the earlier order passed by this Court, dated 28.12.2017.

5. For the reasons stated above, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

sd/- 30/01/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT AT NAGERCOIL.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAJAKKAMANGALAM BRANCH, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S.K.RAMAMURTHY Advocate SR.No.1590 +1cc to MR.D.CHIRTENSON JUGUNU,Advocate in SR.No.1566 GJM/RR/SAR-2-8.2.18-2P-7C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.17992 of 2017 Date :30/01/2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/