Dismissed

M.Malathi v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC25 Apr 2018CRL OP(MD)/3916/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court observed that the investigation had revealed the truth regarding unenforced sale deed allegations, making the arrest apprehended by the petitioner justified.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. dismissed despite submitting affidavit regarding missing documents.

M.Malathi Vs the Inspector of Police — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

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

¶2

Wednesday, the Twenty Fifth day of April Two Thousand Eighteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.3916 of 2018

¶6

M.MALATHI ... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED

¶7

¶8

1 STATE OF REP.BY

¶9

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE APPAN THIRUPATHY POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT, IN CRIME NO. 47 OF 2016

¶10

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶11

2 N.MURUGAN ... 2ND RESPONDENT /DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶12

For Petitioner : M/S.M.GURURAJ Advocate

¶13

For Respondent : MR.A.ROBINSON, Government Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶14

For Intervener : MR.J.VIJAYA RAJA, Advocate

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶17

The petitioner apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506(i) of IPC, in Crime No.47 of 2016, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side).

¶19

The case of the defacto complainant is that the petitioner has received a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only)as advance for executing a sale deed , but the petitioner did not come forward to execute the sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant.

¶20

The learned counsel for the defacto complainant produced the original title deed as well as cheque belonging to the petitioner herein. The petitioner is not in a position, as to how her original title documents as well as the cheque would reached hands of the defacto complainant.

¶21

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

¶22

Taking note of the serious allegations made against the

¶23

petitioner and the investigation reveals the truth and it is only derival of the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶24

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶25

¶26

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, MADURAI

¶27

2 DO-THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI

¶28

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE APPAN THIRUPATHY POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶29

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

¶30

+1. CC to M/S.M.GURURAJ Advocate SR.No.7129

¶31

KSA

¶32

GJM/PN/ASVM/7.5.18-2P-6C

¶33

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

M.Malathi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Malathi 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

Manokaran Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Vigneshkumar Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Marimuthu Vs the Inspector of Police

Kannan, Vs the Inspector of Police

Kathiravan, Vs the Inspector of Police

Periyasamy Alias Cattering Vs the Inspector of Police