Allowed

Ramachandran v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC25 Mar 2015CRL OP(MD)/2319/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, originally granted interim anticipatory bail before cancelling a fraudulent sale deed, sought bail reduction. Court, noting cancellation and payment recovery, granted absolute bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail made absolute; released on bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties subject to conditions of reporting, non-tampering, and non-absconding.

Ramachandran Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

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

¶2

Wednesday, the Twenty Fifth day of March Two Thousand Fifteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON`BLE MR JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.2319 of 2015

¶6

RAMACHANDRAN

¶7

... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1

¶8

¶9

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MEIGNANAPURAM POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

¶10

(CR.NO.212 OF 2014) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶11

For Petitioner : M/S.S.R. ANBARASU Advocate

¶12

For Respondent : MR.A.P.BALASUBRAMANIAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶13

For Intervenor : MR.A.R.KANNAPPAN, Advocate

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶16

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, in Crime No.212 of 2014 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶17

On 24.02.2015, this Cort passed the following order:

¶18

“The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, in Crime No.212 of 2014 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶19

On 13,02.2015, this Court passed the following order: "The defacto complainant in this case is Shanmuga Senthilkumar. It is the case of the defacto complainant that the land measuring 3Acres 6 cents was inherited by him from his mother Rajammal by a will left by her. The land in question is situated in Lakshmipuram village in Tiruchendur Taluk. According to the defacto complainant, on account of his avocation, he had left his village and he was doing his business in Dharmapuri District and later settled in Omalur in Salem District. While so, on 05.09.2014, he applied for encumbrance certificate in respect of his property and was shocked to know that on 01.08.2014, a person impersonating him, had sold the property on 01.08.2004 in favour of this petitioner herein and another Mariappan. Hence, he lodged the present complaint.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. On a mere perusal of the photograph in the original sale deed, it is obvious that the alleged vendor Shanmuga Senthilkumar is not the defacto complainant.

¶21

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this petitioner is a bonafide purchaser and that he believed the said impersonator and had paid him the sale consideration of Rs.4,08,300/-.

¶22

This cannot be a good reason because the fact remains that it is the duty of the purchaser to make all enquires even with regard to the bonafides of the vendors, especially, in these days, when other people's properties are doing freely sold by impersonators. If the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser then he could be protected by an order of anticipatory bail, only if he cancels the sale deed immediately.

¶23

The learned Counsel for the petitioner prays time for getting instructions. If the petitioner is willing to cancel the sale deed, he shall file an affidavit of undertaking before this Court in Tamil."

¶24

In compliance with the orders of this Court, the petitioner has filed an affidavit in Tamil, in which, in paragraph No.8, he has stated as follows:

¶25

"Iah. tHf;fpy; Twg;gl;Ls;s 01/08/2014 njjp gj;jpuj;ij uj;J bra;J bfhLf;f ehd; KGikahf ehd; rk;kjpf;fpnwd;/ tHf;fpy; rk;ke;jg;gl;l brhj;ij rKfk; Iah. mth;fs; gj;jpuj;ij uj;J bra;tJ bjhlh;ghf ve;j cj;jut[ gpwg;gpj;jhYk; mjid epiwntw;w KG kdJld; rk;kjpf;fpnwd;/"

¶26

It is seen that the fraudulent document in question is a sale deed, document No.1514/2014, dated 01.08.2014, registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Udankudi in Tiruchendur Taluk. The property belongs to the defacto complainant, by name K.Shanmuga Senthil Kumar and one person, by name Muthuraj, has impersonated the original owner and has registered this document in favour of Ramachandran (the petitioner herein) and one Mariappan.

¶27

It is obvious to this Court that the document No.1514/2014, dated 01.08.2014 is a fraudulent document. Therefore, this Court directs the Sub-Registrar, Udankudi, to accept the cancellation of the document that will be presented by Ramachandran (the petitioner herein), without insisting the presence of either Mariappan or the bogus executant Muthuraj. It is seen that the Sub-Registrar has got the power to cancel such fraudulent documents, by virtue of Circular No.67, dated 03.11.2011, in C.No.52338/C1/2011.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner himself is a victim, inasmuch as he has paid around Rs.3,00,000/- to Muthuraj as sale consideration for the land.

¶29

In view of the above said submission, this Court directs the respondent police to recover the amount during the course of investigation and deposit the same in the Court concerned.

¶30

Under such circumstances, interim anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner till 10.03.2015. Accordingly, in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ event of arrest, the petitioner is ordered to be released on interim anticipatory bail till 10.03.2015, on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only)

¶31

without sureties to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. [a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

¶32

[b] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶33

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶34

List the matter on 10.03.2015 for hearing.”

¶35

Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the defacto complainant would submit that the petitioner has cancelled the document No.1514/2014 dated 01.08.2014 registering the deed of cancellation datwd 14.03.2015 which was registered as Document No.474 of 2015 in the Sub Registrar office, Udankudi.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the police might be directed to conduct further investigation with regard to the amount that was paid by this petitioner to the co-accused in this case and recover the same.

¶37

In such view of the matter, the respondent police is directed to conduct investigation in this regard and if any money is recovered, the same shall be deposited before the concerned Court and appropriate orders can be passed by the concerned Court. In view of the fact that the petitioner has complied with the undertaking given by him, the interim anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner is made absolute.

¶38

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on her appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sathankulam on executing a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that,

¶39

(a) The petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required.

¶40

[b] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶41

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶42

[d] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

¶43

/ TRUE COPY /

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, SATHANKULAM. 2. -DO- THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TUTICORIN.

¶47

1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEIGNANAPURAM POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

¶48

1. THE SUB-REGISTRAR, UDANKUDI, TIRUCHENDUR TALUK. 5. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, THOOTHUKUDI. 6. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶49

+1. CC to M/S.S.R. ANBARASU Advocate SR.No. 15045 SR : 30.03.2015 : 4P/8C ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.2319 of 2015

¶50

Date :25/03/2015

¶51

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

Ramachandran v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramachandran 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Kannan Vs the Inspector of Police

Sivaguru Kutralam Vs the Inspector of Police

Chinnakalai Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Muniasamy Vs the Inspector of Police

Senthil Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Senthilkumar Vs the Inspector of Police