Allowed

P.Natarajan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC23 Jun 2014CRL OP(MD)/10427/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner sought bail liable for cheating due to a property sale based on vendor fraud. The court granted anticipatory bail conditioned on surrender within 15 days and executing a bond with sureties, noting the remedy lies in civil court regarding title disputes.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon executing a bond with two sureties; ordered to appear before Magistrate within 15 days, failing which petition dismissed.

P.Natarajan Vs the Inspector of Police — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶2

Monday, the Twenty Third day of June Two Thousand Fourteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.S.RAMANATHAN

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.10427 of 2014

¶6

P.NATARAJAN ... PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED

¶7

STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, VIRUDHUNAGAR, CR.NO.11/2014 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶8

V.JEYAKKANNAN ...INTERVENER

¶9

For Petitioner : M/S.POLAX LEGAL SOLUTIONS Advocate For Respondent : MR.C.MAYIL VAHANA RAJENDRAN Addl.Public Prosecutor For Intervener : MR.S.RAMASAMY Advocate

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶12

The petitioner/A.1 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 419, 420 and 468 I.P.C. in Cr.No.11 of 2014 and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶13

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has bonafidely purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 01.03.2013 from Ramuthai, Mahendran and Azhagu Lakhsmi for valuable consideration and thereafter sold the property to the defacto complainant under a registered sale deed dated 21.08.2013 and later a complaint has been filed by the defacto complainant stating that the property originally belonged to one Karuppiah Chettiar and he also filed an objection before the Revenue Authorities for change of transfer of patta and on enquiry, he came to know that the property in S.No.184/4 having an extent of 1 Acre 26 Cents belonged to Muthu Chettiar and his legal heirs, his widow and daughter Ramammal, her husband Peria Muthiah Chettiar and minor children executed othi on 12.04.1967 to Karuppiah Pillai under a registered document No.624/1967 and thereafter sold the same property to Karuppiah Pillai on 08.05.1969 and the said Karuppiah Pillai sold the property to Karuppiah Chettiar S/o Sanmugam Chettiar on 16.08.1984 vide document No.215/1984 and the said Karuppiah https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Chettiar became the owner of the property.

¶14

The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner believed the representation of his vendor and purchased the property for a sum of Rs.5,04,135/- and sold the property later for the same price and there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to cheat and as a matter of fact, the petitioner was cheated by his vendor and therefore, the petitioner may be granted the relief of anticipatory bail.

¶15

The learned Counsel for the intervenor submitted that believing the representation of the petitioner, the defacto complainant purchased the property and later when he applied for transfer of patta, he came to know that one Karuppiah Chettiar claims the title of the property and on further enquiry, he found that originally the property was owned by Muthu Chettiar and his legal heirs as stated above executed othi to Karuppiah Pillai and after sold the property to Karuppiah Pillai and from Karuppiah Pillai, Karuppiah Chettiar purchased the property and on that basis, Karuppiah Chettiar claims to be the owner of the property. He further submitted that as the defacto complainant paid money on the basis of the representation made by the petitioner, the petitioner committed offence and therefore, a case has been given by him against the petitioner.

¶16

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also reiterated the same stand of the learned Counsel for the defacto complainant.

¶17

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that O.S.No.88 of 2013, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sivakasi was filed by one Chinna Muthiah for partition against the defacto complainant and legal heirs of Karuppiah Chettiar stating that he is entitled to 1/2 share in the property. O.S.No.36 of 2014, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi was filed by the petitioner against his purchaser and another person for injunction restraining them from threatening and disturbing him. It is also stated in the plaint filed by the petitioner that the defacto complainant threatened him and demanded a sum of Rs.8,39,000/- being amount of consideration with interest and therefore, the suit was filed for injunction restraining the defacto complainant from interfering with his peaceful living.

¶18

Considering the fact that the petitioner has purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 01.03.2013 from Ramuthai and Others and later he sold the property to the defacto complainant and if the petitioner's vendors had no tile, the remedy open to the defacto complainant is to proceed before the Civil Court and considering the allegations made in the above two suits and from the F.I.R., I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, with certain 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.II, Virudhunagar and on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the

¶19

petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required. 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/-

23/06/2014

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO

¶25

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II VIRUDHUNAGAR

¶26

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VIRUDHUNAGAR AT SRIVILLIPUTHUR

¶27

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, VIRUDHUNAGAR

¶28

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

¶29

+1. CC to M/S.POLAX LEGAL SOLUTIONS Advocate SR.No.33207 +1cc to Mr.S.Ramasamy Advocate, Sr.No. 33995

¶30

AA/25.06.2014/3p- 7c/

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

P.Natarajan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Natarajan v. the 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

A.Prabu Vs the Inspector of Police

A.V. Radha Krishnan Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Muniappan, Vs the Inspector of Police

Kothar Mudeen @ Kotheri Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Sriya Pushpam Escalin Vs the Inspector of Police

Ramesh Vs the Insepctor of Police