Allowed

Manika Selvi v. The Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC27 Sept 2024/11667/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners accused of cheating under Sections 420, 294(b), and 506(ii) IPC regarding a high-value gold jewel transaction. The court viewed the incident as a business dispute and ordered strict compliance with pre-arrest conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with conditions: bond execution, surety deposit, daily police appearance, and victim compensation deposit.

Manika Selvi Vs The Sub Inspector of Police — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.11667 of 2024 and

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 27/09/2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶7

CRL OP(MD). No.11667 of 2024 and Crl.MP(MD) No.7939 of 2024

¶8

1.Manika Selvi,

¶9

2.Vekateshwaran,

¶10

3.Madasamy @ Marudhupandian, ... Petitioners/Accused 2 to 4

¶11

¶12

The Sub Inspector of Police, Mudukulathore Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. Cr No.150/2024.

¶13

... Respondent/Complainant

¶14

For Petitioners : M/s.LAKSHMI GOPINATHAN for M/s. Polax Legal Solutions.

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.B.THANGA ARAVINDH, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶16

For Intervenor : Mr.A.BALAJI, Advocate

¶17

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS

¶18

PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime no.150 of 2024 on the file of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Respondent Police.

¶19

1/8

¶20

CRL OP(MD). No.11667 of 2024 and

¶21

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶22

The petitioners/ A2 to A4, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police, for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.150 of 2024, have filed this second application, seeking anticipatory bail.

¶23

2.The earlier application filed by these petitioners was dismissed by this Court, considering the objections of the respondent police and the defacto complainant that the petitioners have purchased huge quantity of jewels from the defacto complainant and cheated him without making payment.

¶24

3.In this application, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the defacto complainant has projected the case that the petitioners have purchased the jewels for the purpose of marriage of A1's sister/A2 's daughter. According to her, there was no marriage as projected by the defacto complainant. In fact, the first petitioner's sister is a graduate and now studying first year Law. The learned counsel further submits that it is only a business transaction between A1 and the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant is having two jewellery shops, namely, Lalitha Jewellers at Mudukaluthore and Bhavani Jewellers at Sikkal. A1 has purchased certain jewels from the defacto complainant on various occasions from 05.01.2023. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis The learned counsel by producing the bank statement of A1 submits that there were

¶25

2/8

¶26

CRL OP(MD). No.11667 of 2024 and

¶27

several transactions between A1 and the defacto complainant from 05.01.2023 to 15.11.2023. The allegation in this complaint is that on 20.09.2023, A1 has purchased 37 sovereigns of gold jewels from the defacto complainant in the morning, for which, he transferred a sum of Rs.25 Lakhs immediately through bank. On the same day, in the evening, A1 along with A2 went to the defacto complainant's shop and purchased 150 sovereigns of jewels worth about Rs.83 Lakhs, out of which, a sum of Rs.29,50,000/- was paid by A1, however, the balance amount is yet to be paid by him. A2 has assured that the amount would be paid, however, they are delaying the payment, in order to cheat the defacto complainant and therefore, the defacto complainant has lodged a complaint.

¶28

4.The learned counsel further submits that for the occurrence that had taken place in the month of September 2023, a complaint was lodged only on 01.06.2024. She further submits that A1 was arrested on 28.07.2024 and released on bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mudukulathur in CMP No.5234 of 2024 on 26.09.2024. The allegation as against these petitioners is that the petitioners 2 & 3 have criminally intimidated the defacto complainant, when he approached them for payment.

¶29

5.The learned counsel for the defacto complainant submits that these petitioners, with an intention to cheat the defacto complainant have purchased 37 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

3/8

¶31

CRL OP(MD). No.11667 of 2024 and

¶32

sovereigns of gold jewels on 20.09.2023 in the morning and paid the amount, making the defacto complainant to believe that they would make the payment, purchased another 150 sovereigns of gold, on the same day in the evening and failed to make payment for the same. The learned counsel further submits that the first petitioner/A2, the mother of A1 has sent a voice mail to the defacto complainant, giving an assurance that the amount would be settled within a stipulated time. However, they have failed to make the payment. Therefore, the defacto complainant was constrained to lodge a complaint.

¶33

6.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent submits that though this Court has granted interim direction to these petitioners to appear before the respondent police, they have not co-operated for the investigation. He further submits that they have deliberately evaded the investigation and also intentionally cheated the defacto complainant. According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), the voice mail recovered from the accused mobile phone discloses that there was a conversation between A2 and the defacto complainant, wherein, she has admitted the purchase of jewels and also gave an assurance for the payment.

¶34

7.This Court has considered the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.

¶35

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

¶36

4/8

¶37

CRL OP(MD). No.11667 of 2024 and

¶38

8.The petitioners before this Court are A2 to A4. A1 is the son of the A2. There were transactions between A1 and the defacto complainant from month of January 2023. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also produced bank statement to that effect. In the morning of 20.09.2023, A1 is said to have purchased 37 sovereigns of gold jewels from the defacto complainant and made payment for the same. On the same day in the evening, A1 along with his mother A2 went to the defacto complainant's shop and purchased another 150 sovereigns of gold jewels. At the time of subsequent purchase of 150 sovereigns of gold in the evening, A1 is said to have issued two cheques bearing Nos. 438835, dated 22/09/2023 for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- and another cheque bearing No.438842, dated 21.09.2023 for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-. On receiving these cheques, the defacto complainant has kept it without presenting the same for collection and later he lodged a complainant on 01.06.2024. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is only a business transaction, for which, the defacto complainant has to work out his remedy with A1. It is also reported that A1 was released on bail by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Mudukulathur on 26.09.2024.

¶39

9.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to these petitioners, who are the mother, brother and uncle of A1 in Crime No.150 of 2024.

¶40

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

¶41

5/8

¶42

CRL OP(MD). No.11667 of 2024 and

¶43

Acordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed and the 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 of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Mudukulathur, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mudukulathur and on further conditions that:

¶44

i. The petitioners and the sureties shall submit a copy of their Aadhaar Card or any other identity card issued by the Government in proof of their residence address;

¶45

ii. The petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily twice at 10.30 a.m and 5.30 p.m, for a period of 30 days.

¶46

iii. The first petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the credit of Crime.No.150 of 2024. The concerned Judicial Magistrate shall disburse the amount either under Section 395 of BNSS (Section 357 of Cr.P.C) or under Section 498 of BNSS (452 of

¶47

Cr.P.C.) suitably.

¶48

iv. The petitioners shall not misuse the liberty granted to them by

¶49

indulging in any further offence and shall not tamper with the

¶50

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

¶51

6/8

¶52

CRL OP(MD). No.11667 of 2024 and

¶53

prosecution witnesses. The petitioners shall be available for the trial as well.

¶54

v. On violation of any of the above conditions by the petitioners, the respondent police shall move an application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

¶55

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

sd/27/09/2024

/ TRUE COPY /

/10/2024

Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶60

VRN TO

¶61

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MUDUKULATHUR.

¶62

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶63

3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUDUKULATHORE POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶64

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

¶65

+1 CC to M/s.M/S.POLAX LEGAL SOLUTIONS, Advocate ( SR-11876[I] dated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 27/09/2024 )

¶66

7/8

¶67

CRL OP(MD). No.11667 of 2024 and

¶68

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11667 of 2024 Date :27/09/2024

¶69

SA/JGB/SAR. /08.10.2024/8P/6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023.

¶70

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

¶71

8/8

Manika Selvi v. The Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manika Selvi v. The Sub 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

K Sangilipandi alias Sangili Pandi Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

S.Arvindh Vs The Inspector of Police

Saronraj @ Nagaraj Vs The Inspector of Police

Parameswari. M Vs The Assistant Commissioner

A.Prakash Vs Kalaiselvan

Ranjithkumar @ Ranjith Vs The State of Tamilnadu