K.Ravichandran v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Dated: 06/09/2022 PRESENT The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN 1.K.Ravichandran 2.R.Valli ... Petitioners/Accused 1 & 2 Vs.
The State Represented by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No.15 of 2022) ... Respondent/Complainant K.Nallathambi ... Petitioner/Intervener For Petitioners : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathy, Advocate for Mr.M.Murali, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Criminal side) For Intervenor : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. PRAYER:- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.15 of 2021 on the file of the Respondent Police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order:- The petitioners, who are arrayed as A1 and A2 apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 IPC, in Crime No.15 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant is an Advocate and his wife namely Malathi is a District Councillor. A1 namely Ravichandran is a functionary of a political party. His wife namely second petitioner was the Vice Chancellor of Mother Therasa University, Kodaikanal for the period between 2016 and 2019. The complainant became a friend of one Vijay. The above said Vijay requested the de-facto complainant to arrange jobs for his relatives. In the second week of October, 2017, he introduced the accused persons to the above said Vijay. At that time, the paternal Uncle Ganesh was also present. At that time, A2 promised to arrange jobs for various persons and on that account, the wife of the above said Vijay, paid Rs.15,00,000/- for getting Assistant Professor in 1/4
Computer Science Department. The above said amount was paid to A1 Ravichandran. That amount was in turn handed over to A2. At that time, he handed over the blank application and also demanded balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for arranging job. One Sathya, Srija and the above said Vijay handed over Rs.45,00,000/- to A1. Similarly for various jobs like clerk, etc. Rs.23,00,000/- was paid to the above said Ravichandran by the above said Vijay. But during the office of the above said A2, no jobs were provided They were delaying the appointment on the ground that cases are pending in the court. When the money was demanded back, A1 was delaying the same. But later, the above said Vijay started making trouble. Similarly, Rs.12,00,000/- was also paid by Boopalan, Sattur Mani to A1 for arranging job in Pachayat Union.
Over the above said amount, Rs,25,00,000/- was returned. Out of Rs.25,00,000/-, Rs.15,00,000/- was paid to Vijay. Balance amount was not paid. By misusing the official power, 2nd accused has swindled huge money and he was also cheated by A1, so also other persons. Based upon the above said complaint, the case has been registered.
3.Seeking anticipatory bail, this petition has been filed. 4.Heard both sides. Intervener is also present and elaborate argument has been advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, mostly with reference to the personal motive and enmity between A1 and the de-facto complainant.
5.From the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, this court came to know that not only there was pervious enmity between two persons, but also political motive also existed. At one point of time, the de-facto complainant changed his side and later rejoined in the present political party. 6.Now whatever it may be, the concern of the court is that the innocent victims alleged to have been cheated are true. We need not worry much about personal and the political enmity between the defacto complainant and A1. It is noted that A2 was holding the higher post in the University, has also been alleged to have been involved in the above fake promise of appointment.
7.During the course of argument, it was brought to the notice of this court that because of the above said illegal activity, the entire appointment process of the University was cancelled by the Chancellor namely Governor of Tamil Nadu. But it is seen that by misusing the official position, A2 alleged to have received money. Both the accused received money from various persons as detailed in the list, which has been submitted.
8.Now the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would heavily rely upon the unrealistic information that has been furnished by the complainant. According to him, none of the persons, who alleged to have been cheated has not chosen to give any 2/4
complaint. It is also submitted that only the complainant by misusing the political power and official position, he only collected money from various persons. But later did not return the same. He is also not a man of good conduct and precedent. Several cheating cases have also been pending against him. 9.The first contention on the part of the petitioners is the originally the complaint was received by the Vempakottai Police Station and after enquiry, it was closed. During the course of enquiry, one Boopalan and Ganeshan stated that no such amount was paid to the petitioners. So it was closed. Later again, the same complaint was forwarded due to political rivalry. 10.The next contention is that the de-facto complainant is in the habit of launching false complaint against several persons.
He also even went to the extent of lodging complaint against the wife of ExMinister and he has also asked to give witness in respect of the complaint which was given against the Ex-Minister of Virudhunagar District. When that was refused, he developed enmity. During the election period also, he indulged in misleading the election events. When that was questioned by A1, again, he developed enmity. He was also annexured the number of the cases, that have been pending against the de-facto complainant. So as mentioned above earlier, political and personal enmity between A1 and the de-facto complainant need not be taken into account.
11.Reading of the CD file shows that several persons have given statement against the petitioners. This shows that prima facie materials have been collected in the form of statement of witnesses. So when huge amount is involved and the investigation in the initial stage, if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, then the amount of Rs.77,00,000/- that has been involved in this case, cannot be recovered. So even though political enmity exists between the defacto complainant and the accused persons, I am of the considered view that considering the magnitude of the amount involved, the manner in which, the offence said to have taken place and the written statements have also been received, I find that there is no merit in this petition.
12.In the result, the all the petitions are dismissed. sd/- 06/09/2022 / TRUE COPY / /09/2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
3/4
TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT. 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1 CC to M/s.M.MURALI, Advocate ( SR-9728[I] dated 07/09/2022 )
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.15425 of 2022 Date :06/09/2022 er RS/VR/SAR.1 (22.09.2022) 4P-4C 4/4