Dismissed

T.Iniyan v. v.S.Raghavan

Madras HC23 Oct 2017CRL MP(MD)/6986/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a de-facto complainant, moved to cancel anticipatory bail granted to the accused in a cheating and forgery case. The accused complied with the earlier court order by preventing litigation related to a disputed sale deed. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the cancellation petition as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous petition seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail is dismissed as infructuous.

T.Iniyan Vs v.S.Raghavan — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

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

¶2

Monday, the Twenty Third day of October Two Thousand Seventeen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

CRL MP(MD) No.6986 of 2017 IN

¶6

CRL OP(MD) No.18341 of 2016

¶7

T.INIYAN ... PETITIONER/DEFACTO

¶8

COMPLAINANT

¶9

¶10

1 V.S.RAGHAVAN ...1ST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶11

2 STATE REP.BY

¶12

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶13

DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, (LAND GRABBING CELL), TRICHY,

¶14

(CRIME NO.33 OF 2015) ...2ND RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶15

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to cancel Anticipatory Bail order made in favour of Respondent No.1/Accused No.4 V.S.Ragavan made in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.18341 of 2016 passed on 18.10.2016 by this Honourable Court

¶16

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.D.SELVANAYAGAM, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.K.ANBARASAN, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the Respondent No.2 the court made the following order:-

¶17

The petitioner / de-facto complainant lodged a compliant before the respondent police for the offences under Sections 120(B), 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC in Crime No.33 of 2015.

¶18

2.The case of the prosecution is that the first accused impersonated the de-facto complainant and executed a power of attorney in his name by forging the signature of the de-facto complainant and subsequently, sold the property to A4/ petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18341 of 2016.

¶19

3.Initially, this Court dismissed the anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15366 of 2016. Thereafter, the very same petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ filed another anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18341 of 2016. While granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, this Court by

¶20

its order dated 18.10.2016, directed the petitioner to cancel the sale deed by appeared before the Sub-Registrar. Since the condition was not complied with, the de-facto complainant filed a present petition to cancel the anticipatory bail. After filing cancellation of bail application, the petitioner was present and presented the cancellation deed before the District Registrar, No.III, Trichy and the sale deed was cancelled on 20.10.2017.

¶21

4.Since the petitioner complied with the order of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18341 of 2016 dated 18.10.2016, this cancellation of anticipatory bail application filed by the de-facto complainant is become infructuous. In view of the above, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶22

sd/23/10/2017 / TRUE COPY /

¶23

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

¶24

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, (LAND GRABBING CELL), TRICHY,

¶25

2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶26

+1. C.C. to M/S.D.SELVANAYAGAM Advocate SR.No.32166

¶27

GJM/RR/BS/SAR-2-26.10.2017-2P-4C

¶28

ORDER IN CRL MP(MD) No.6986 of 2017 IN CRL OP(MD) No.18341 of 2016 Date :23/10/2017

¶29

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

T.Iniyan v. v.S.Raghavan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Iniyan v. v.S.Raghavan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Krishnan Vs the Inspector of Police

Muniasamy, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Suganthi Vs the Inspector of Police

N.Parameshwari Vs the Inspector of Police

M. Senthil Kumar Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

V.Thennarasu, Vs the Inspector of Police