Manikandan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Dated: 14/08/2023 THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Crl.OP(MD)No.14229 of 2023 1.Manikandan 2.Karuppuraja 3.Illayaraja : Petitioners/A1 to A3 Vs.
State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Vikramangalam Police Station, Madurai District.
(Crime No.113 of 2023) : Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.P.Balan For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Government Advocate (Criminal side) For Intervenor : M/s.Jessi Jeeva Priya.P PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C.
PRAYER:-For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.113 of 2023 on the file of the Respondent Police.
ORDER: The Court made the following order:- The petitioners, who are arrayed as A1 to A3 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 109, 435, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC, in Crime No.113 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that he is owning lands in Survey Nos.100/6A, 100/6B and 100/6C measuring about 3.50 Acres. About 450 coconut trees and apart from that, flowering plaints were planted. On the eastern side, A1-Manikandan is owning lands. In 2020, A1 namely Manikandan and one Philip Murugan setting the coconut trees fire. A complaint was given. But there was compromise between the parties. Later A1 took steps to measure the property. During measurement, it was found that A1 was occupied 15 cents belongs to him. He promised to restore the position after making the harvest. But against the above said promise, he is making frequent trouble. On 30/07/2023 at about 03.00 pm, again, they set
fire, caused damage to the flower plants and coconut trees worth about Rs.4,50,000/-. When that was questioned by him, all the accused persons criminally intimidation him. Upon which, the above said case was registered for the offences stated above.
3.Seeking anticipatory bail, this petition has been filed by the petitioners stating that because of the above said civil issue, this false complaint has been given by the de-facto complainant.
4.Heard both sides. Intervenor is also come on record.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the Intervenor would straight away rely upon the earlier complaint given by him against the petitioners herein. The first complaint is dated 28/04/2021. That was enquired in CSR No.32 of 2021. Another complaint was given, on 13/01/2022 and that was enquired in CSR No.4 of 2022. The 3rd complaint was given, on 08/11/2022 and enquired in CSR No.313 of 2022.
6.Reading of the above said complaints and enquiry file shows that both are neighbouring land owners. At one point of time, the de-facto complainant namely Duraisingam gave a statement that by measuring the property they will resolve the issue and the first petitioner has also given statement stating that the defacto complainant alleged to have encroached the property in Survey No.100/5A7 during cultivation. So from the above said previous enquiry, it is seen that because of the land issue, continuous trouble exists between the parties.
7.So far as the fire accident is concerned, this is not the first occurrence. In the complaint, dated 08/11/2022, he has stated that the coconut trees and PVC pipes were set on fire by the first namely Manikandan and Philip Murugan. At the village level, there was a compromise.
8.With regard to patta proceedings, it is stated that it is pending before RDO. Pending the above said proceedings, on 06/11/2022 the above said Manikandan and
other persons damaged the land and caused damage worth about Rs.25,000/-. That was also enquired. In the course of the enquiry, on the basis of the undertaking given by the first accused, it was withdrawn by the de-facto complainant and steps have been taken by the de-facto complainant to measure the property also. According to the de-facto complainant, survey was conducted and during the course of survey only, the above said encroachment came to light. Challenging the above said proceedings, case is pending before the DRO. Pending the above said enquiry, this fire accident said to have taken place, on 30/07/2023.
9.Even though, it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that continuous false complaints have been given by the de-facto complainant, but the photographs as well as the observation mahazar prepared by the respondent during the course of the investigation, indicates that there is prima facie ground for implicating these petitioners into the above said offence.
10.The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor/de-facto complainant would submit that the first accused and his relatives are working in the Police Department, taking advantage of their position only, no arrest has been made so far.
11.To whom, the disputed property belongs is a matter for consideration not only by the Revenue Officials, but also by the Investigating Officer. Both of them claim, rival claim over the disputed land. Without resolving the issue through the proper civil forum, it appears that the petitioners alleged to have caused extensive damage by setting the coconut and others, on fire. The offence of this nature should not be taken lightly.
12.So, I find no merit to entertain this petition. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed.
14/08/2023 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er
To, 1.The Inspector of Police, Vikramangalam Police Station, Madurai District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
G.ILANGOVAN, J er Crl.OP(MD)No.14229 of 2023 14/08/2023