alleged that in repayment of the amounts so borrowed, she had agreed to sell one of her properties to the petitioner, the failure of which is the subject matter of a civil dispute as O.S. No.161 of 2021 before the Sub Court, Palakkad wherein an order of attachment of property was ordered. The learned counsel further contended that a Crime as F.I.R. No.810 of 2021 was filed at the instance of the mother of the defacto complainant as a counterblast to the suit filed by the petitioner. Further, by order dated 15.02.2022, the Sessions Court, Palakkad, granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in Crime No.810 of 2021. The counsel contended that after anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner, the present FIR was registered based on the same set of allegations, solely to defeat the order of bail. The learned counsel also submitted that the defacto complainant has once again filed another complaint based on the same set of facts for the purpose of initiating a fresh crime against the petitioner and thus she is indulging in filing repeated complaints against the petitioner, on the same set of allegations, with minor variations, all with the ulterior purposes. Using her political clout, the defacto complainant is attempting to put the petitioner in jail, contended the learned counsel.
