Allowed

John Muthiah v. the Sub - Inspector of Police

Madras HC10 Dec 2013CRL OP(MD)/19252/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to an accused facing charges of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court imposed conditions, including daily police reporting and a personal bond, deeming the underlying dispute to have civil undertones.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on anticipatory bail subject to executing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties and appearing before police daily for six weeks.

John Muthiah Vs the Sub - Inspector of Police — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Tenth day of December Two Thousand Thirteen PRESENT

¶2

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶3

CRL OP(MD) No.19252 of 2013

¶4

JOHN MUTHIAH ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED (SINGLE) P.T.PATTUKUMAR ... INTERVENING PETITIONER/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶5

Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE PUDUKKOTTAI POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT. CRIME NO. 269/2013. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶6

For Petitioner : M/S.R. ANAND Advocate

¶7

For Respondent : M/S.K.V.RAJARAJAN, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervener : M/S.V.S.BALAMURUGAN, Advocate

¶8

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

¶9

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶10

The petitioner, who is the sole accused, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506(ii) I.P.C., which took place between 10.10.2013 and 04.04.2013 in Crime No.269 of 2013 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶11

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/intervenor had entered into an agreement of sale with one Anand Jeyanthi and there was difference of opinion. The petitioner made a promise to solve the problem and collected Rs.7,05,000/- from the defacto complainant. Later on when the defacto complainant insisted for payment, the petitioner issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-, however, on presentation, it was bounced. The petitioner has neither solved the problem nor repaid the amount.

¶12

Mr.R.Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even as per the deed of affirmation dated 23.01.2011, the defacto complainant and the said Anitha Jeyanthi agreed to solve the dispute. Therefore, the case projected by the prosecution that to solve the problem, the petitioner had received a sum of Rs.7,05,000/- is false and concocted one. By using the cheque given by the petitioner, the defacto complainant had also issued a legal notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, for which the petitioner had issued a suitable reply on 07.03.2013. Till today, the defacto complainant has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not filed either complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act or civil suit for recovering the said sum. The matter is purely civil in nature, but it has been given the colour of criminality.

¶13

Learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit that

¶14

investigation is pending.

¶15

Learned counsel for the intervenor strongly opposed by the move

¶16

for anticipatory bail by submitting that the petitioner has not solved the dispute between the intervenor and Smt.Anitha Jeyanthi and he has not repaid the said sum. He also invited the attention of this Court to similar kind of offences in Crime No.7 of 2009 on the file of District Crime Branch, Tuticorin, wherein the concerned person had lodged a complaint that the petitioner has cheated him to the tune of Rs.10,60,000/-.

¶17

In response, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said dispute has been resolved and as on today no criminal case is pending case the petitioner.

¶18

This Court carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail subject to the following conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi and on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 11.00 a.m. for a period of six weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.

¶20

The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/-

¶21

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶22

¶23

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, TUTICORIN.

¶24

2 -DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TUTICORIN.

¶25

3 THE SUB - INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUDUKKOTTAI POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

¶26

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

¶27

+1. CC to M/S.R. ANAND Advocate SR.No.61669.

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ msm 13.12.2013 p2-6c

¶29

IN CRL OP(MD) No.19252 of 2013

John Muthiah v. the Sub - Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

John Muthiah v. the Sub - Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gnanam Vs the Inspector of Police

Paulraj @ Paulpandi Vs the Inspector of Police

Mohammed Lmithias Vs the Inspector of Police

Palanisamy Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Pushpam Vs Manimegalai

S.Surulirajan @ Suruli Vs the Inspector of Police