Partly allowed

T.Trisangu v. the State Rep.by

Madras HC21 Dec 2023CRL OP/25974/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a miscellaneous petition to correct the crime number in a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. A1's petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed. Petitions A5, A6, and A7 were dismissed partially; anticipatory bail was granted to A5 and A7 subject to conditions including filing affidavits regarding pledged jewels, providing identity proof, regular court appearances, and refraining fr

What did the court decide?

Petitions A1 and A5 dismissed in part; anticipatory bail granted to remaining petitioners conditioned on affidavit filing before II Metropolitan Magistrate, release on bond, weekly appearance, and pro

T.Trisangu Vs the State Rep.by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.Nos.25974 and 27110 of 2023

¶2

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶3

A1 has filed Crl.OP.No.27110 of 2023 and A5, A6 and A7 have filed Crl.OP.No.25974 of 2023 both in Crime No.299 of 2023, registered under Sections 341, 465, 468 r/w Section 109 IPC.

¶4

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent Police and the learned counsel for the intervenor.

¶5

3.A5, A6 and A7, who have filed Crl.OP.No.25974 of 2023 have also filed Crl.MP.No19762 of 2023, seeking to incorporate FIR in Crime No.299 of 2023 in Crl.OP.No.25974 of 2023. This particular miscellaneous petiton is allowed. Before issuing order copy, Registry may note that the FIR had been registered in Crime No.299 of 2023. Registry may also carryout necessary amendment in Crl.OP.No.25974 of 2023 deleting crime number not known of 2023 and amending that to Crime No.299 of 2023. There is also an application (Crl.MP.No.19707 of 2023 in Crl.OP.No.25974 of 2023) filed to intervene by the de facto complainant.

¶6

4.The short facts of the case of the respondents are that the de facto complainant is running a Pawn Broker shop wherein apparently he

¶7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶8

1/8

¶9

had a thriving business with large number of customers pledging their jewels.

¶10

The shop was originally run by the father of the de facto complainant. It is stated that in the year 2018, the father suffered a stroke and was not able to attend the business activities. Thereafter, the father died in the year 2022. The mother also died in the year 2023. It is stated that A1, who was working in the shop then took entire control of the shop to the disadvantage of the de facto complainant. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitoner/A1 in Crl.OP.No.27110 of 2023 that A1 had been appointed by the father about 15 years back and was also residing in a place quite just behind the shop where the Pawn business was being run.

¶11

5.The further case of the prosecution is that taking advantage of the naivity of the de facto complainant in the affairs of the business, A1 had along with A2, A3 and A4, stolen the jewels which had been pledged with the de facto complainant and A2, A3 and A4 who belong to one composite family are said to have pledged those stolen jewels with Manapuram Asset Finance Company were A5, A6, A7/petitoners in Crl.OP.No.25974 of 2023 are employed. The learned counsel for A5, A6, A7 stated that the jewels had been pledged and proper receipts had been received and that the details of the jewels are maintained in the register. It is also contended that A5, A6 and A7 had attended enquiry when notices were issued under Section 91 Cr.PC. It must however also pointed out that the said appearance was 2/8

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

not voluntary, but an application was filed questioning issuance of notice under Section 91 Cr.PC, and an order had been passed by a learned Single Judge with direction to participate in the enquiry. Thus, there cannot be a presumption that A5, A6 and A7 were not in the knowledge of the affairs. To a little extent, since it had been stated that they would retain the jewellery which had been pledged by A2, A3 and A4 separately and would also not hand them over back to A2, A3, A4, even if amounts are paid to redeem the said jewels, some bonafide can be placed with respect to the said accused. It is stated by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that A1 was instrumental in stealing the gold jewelleries from the shop of the de facto complainant and A2 who is a friend of A1 and A3 and A4 who are related to A2 had pledged those jewels with A5, A6 and A7 employees of the Manapuram Asset Finance Company.

¶14

6.Investigation must proceed to determine whether A5, A6 and A7 had knowledge that the jewels so pledged were actually stolen property or not. They were employees and if all the jewels were pledged at a time when they were in place and incharge at Manapuram Asset Finance Company, then, investigation must also find out whether the jewels were deliberately pledged only when these three accused were available and not pledged when any other employee of Manapuram Asset Finance Company was available.

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

3/8

¶17

7.There has been an intervening application which has been filed and the learned counsels for the intervenor had very strongly objected to any order passed particularly granting of any relief to A1. It had been contended that A1 had taken advantage of the situation in which the family of the de facto complainant was put to consequent to the father suffering a stroke and unfortunately also dying in the year 2022 and the mother also dying in the year 2023 and had stolen away the jewels.

¶18

It is contended by the learned counsel for the 1^st petitioner that it had come to knowledge about the stolen property in February 2023, but that the complaint was lodged in the FIR was registered only in October 2023. These are all aspects which can be taken up at a later date but the very fact that A1 was in a position to access the jewels in the shop of the de facto complainant, indicates that his presence is required before the investigating authorities to further examine the nature of the offence. Custodial interrogation is therefore required of A1.

¶19

9.So far as the petitioners in Crl.OP.No.25974 of 2023 are concerned, their bonafide would be reflected in their co-operation during the course of investigation. An affidavit must be filed by the 1^st and 3^rd petitioners before the II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore that the jewels pledged would be retained separately and independently and that all

¶20

4/8

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

the documents relating to the pledging of the jewels would also retained and handed over to the investigating officer if required and that they would have no objection if applications have filed before the said Metropolitan Magistrate, seeking a stock to be taken of the jewels which had been so pledged. The parties to approach before the said Metropolitan Magistrate Court, for appropriate reliefs relating to the return of the gold jewelleries. There must be complete co-operation in this regard.

¶23

10.It is also stated by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that the 2^nd petitioner in Crl.OP.No.25957 of 2023 is not an accused in the case. In view of that particular fact though the discussion has been with respect to all the three petitioners, the petitioner in Crl.OP.No.25974 of 2023 is dismissed insofar as the 2^nd petitioner is concerned . A reference to A5 and A7 would now only be with respect to A7, who will be the 3^rd petitioner in Crl.OP.No.25974 of 2023. In view of the fact investigation is at extremely at nasent stage, petiton filed by A1 in Crl.OP.No.27110

¶24

of 2023, is dismissed. Anticipatory bail is granted to the 1^st and 3^rd petitioners in Crl.OP.No.25974 of 2023 provided they file affidavits as stated above before the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.

¶25

11.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 1^st and 3^rd https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/8

¶26

petitioners in Crl.OP.No.25974 of 2023, with certain conditions.

¶27

12.Accordingly, the said petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute 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, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

¶28

[a] the 1^st and 3^rd petitioners in Crl.OP.No.25974 of 2023, and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

¶29

[b] the 1^st and 3rd petitioners (Crl.OP.No.25974 of 2023) to appear before the respondent everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

¶30

[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶31

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

6/8

¶34

[e] 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].

¶35

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶36

21.12.2023

¶37

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

7/8

¶40

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶41