The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court rejected petitions for anticipatory bail filed by accused persons charged with cheating in a property dispute. The Court found the allegations serious and dismissed both criminal original petitions without granting relief.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Tuesday, the Twenty Fourth day of March Two Thousand Fifteen
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH
CRL OP(MD) Nos.18860 and 19868 of 2014
1 JANANAME JAYAM
3 MOHAMED KALITH
... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.4,5 AND 6 IN CRL.O.P.No.18860/2014
1.K.V.NAGASUNDARAM
2.K.V.KUMARASAMY
... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.2 & 3 IN CRL.O.P.No.19868/2014
K.N.MANICKAVASAGAM ...INTERVENER IN BOTH THE CASES.
1.THE STATE REP.BYS
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI CITY,
CR.NO.115 OF 2014 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT IN CRL.O.P.No.18860/2014
2.THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CITY CRIME BRANCH POLICE STATION, MADURAI CITY, CR.NO.115 OF 2014 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT IN CRL.O.P.No.19868/201
For Petitioner : M/S.S.MAHENDRAPATHY Advocate
IN CRL.O.P.No.18860/2014
For petitioner : MR.B.A.MURUGANANTHAM,Advocate
IN CRL.O.P.No.19868/201
For Respondent : MR.A.P.BALASUBRAMANIAN, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) IN BOTH THE CASES
For Intervener : MR.S.SUNDARAPANDIAN, ADVOCATE IN BOTH THE CASES.
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 109, 406, 420, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC in Crime No.115 of 2014 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
they have narrated the facts of the case as follows:
i) The defacto complainant in this case is one Annadurai. Annadurai's father Gurusamy entered into a registered sale agreement with one K.V.Subramanian (A1) for purchasing undivided share of land to an extent of 240 sq.ft. in the property comprised in Door No.1 (TS No.870 and 871), Nanmai Tharuvar Koil Street, Arisikara Street, Madurai and the agreement was registered as Doc.No.2376 of 2010 in the office of the Joint SubRegistrar No.4, Madurai. At the time of entering into the agreement, Gurusamy had paid Rs.2,00,000/- to K.V.Subramanian (A1) as advance. K.V.Subramanian (A1) received another sum of Rs.50,000/- on 25.10.2010 and extended the agreement period for further one year with necessary endorsement thereon.
ii) During the subsistence of the sale agreement, in order to create encumbrances on the property, K.V.Subramanian (A1) executed a General Power of Attorney in respect of the same property in favour of one Chandrasekar on 29.12.2010 and registered the same as Doc.No.2988 of 2010 in the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar No.4, Madurai. On the strength of the Power of Attorney, Chandrasekar entered into an agreement with one Manoharan in respect of the same property on 18.01.2011 and received a sum of Rs.50,000/- as advance sale consideration and registered the sale agreement as Doc.No.359 of 2011 on the file of the Joint Sub-Registrar No.4, Madurai.
iii) When Gurusamy approached K.V.Subramanian (A1) as to why he encumbered the property, A1 assured him that he will cancel all the encumbrances on receipt of Rs.5,30,000/- from Gurusamy. Therefore, Gurusamy paid Rs.5,30,000/- to K.V.Subramanian (A1), on receipt of which, K.V.Subramanian executed a Power of Attorney dated 25.04.2011 registered as Doc.No.907 of 2011 in favour of Gurusamy and also issued a sale receipt for Rs.7,80,000/-
iv) K.V.Nagasundaram (A2) and K.V.Kumarasamy (A3) / petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.19868 of 2014 are the own brothers of K.V.Subramanian (A1) and they approached Gurusamy and came forward to sell their undivided share in the said property, like how their brother had done. Believing their words, Gurusamy paid them Rs.15,60,000/- and after receiving the same, K.V.Nagasundaram (A2) and K.V.Kumarasamy (A3) gave a General Power of Attorney on 27.06.2011 in favour of Gurusamy, which was registered as Doc.No.1440 of 2011 and they have also issued a sale receipt to Gurusamy for having received Rs.15,60,000/-.
v) While so, Gurusamy died on 16.04.2012. After the death of Gurusamy, when his son Annadurai / defacto complainant approached K.V.Subramanian (A1), K.V.Nagasundaram (A2) and K.V.Kumarasamy (A3) for executing the sale deed, they deliberately dragged the matter on some pretext or the other and K.V.Nagasundaram (A2) and K.V.Kumarasamy (A3) along with A4 entered into a sale agreement with one Mohammed Abubakkar on receipt of Rs.5,00,000/- as advance and registered the same as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Doc.No.5608 of 2013 on the file of the Joint Sub-Registrar No.4, Madurai.
24/03/2015
/ TRUE COPY /
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO
CITY CRIME BRANCH POLICE STATION, MADURAI CITY.
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN
CRL OP(MD) NoS.18860 & 19868 of 2014 Date :24/03/2015
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ RG.27.03.2015 3P.6C.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioners accused of cheating in a property transaction.
Whether the petitioners can claim to be innocent purchasers despite prior records of encumbrance creation.
Whether to dismiss criminal original petitions for anticipatory bail based on the serious nature of allegations.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Jananame Jayam
Sheik Mydeen
Mohamed Kalith
The State
P.N. Prakash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
