Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 528
High Court of Judicature at Madras
S. NAGAMUTHU, J.
C. Ramalingam
Versus
S. Geetha & Another
Crl. O.P. Nos. 11466 & 11467 of 2013
Decided On : 28-02-2014
For the Petitioner:R. Mohandoss, Advocate.
For Respondents:R1, R2 & R3, M. Mohamed Riyaz, Government Advocate (Criminal Side), A.R. Ravindran, Advocate.
The main legal point established is that fraud played upon the court, especially through the production of forged documents, can lead to the cancellation of anticipatory bail.
Headnote:
Forgery - Anticipatory Bail - IPC 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 - Land Fraud
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the accused in a case involving alleged land fraud. The accused had obtained bail by producing forged documents claiming title to government land and selling it to innocent purchasers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the documents produced by the accused were forged, and there was prima facie evidence of fraud. The anticipatory bail granted to the accused was canceled due to the fraud played upon the court.
Issues: Forgery of documents, Fraud played upon the court, Validity of anticipatory bail
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the evidence of forged documents and the fraud played upon the court by the accused in obtaining anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: The court allowed both criminal original petitions and canceled the anticipatory bail granted to the accused. The original documents were retained for further investigation by the police.
1. The petitioner in both these petitions is the de facto complainant in Crime No.431 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police. The respondents 1 and 2 in Crl.O.P.No.11467 of 2013 are the Accused 1 and 2 and the 1st respondent in Crl.O.P.No.11466 of 2013 is the 3rd Accused. The said case has been registered for alleged offence u/s.406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 of IPC. The respondents 1 and 2 in Crl.O.P.No.11467 of 2013 filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.651 of 2013 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, seeking anticipatory bail. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated 28.02.2013 granted anticipatory bail to them. While, the 1st respondent in Crl.O.P.No.11466 of 2013 filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.759 of 2013 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, seeking anticipatory bail. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated 08.03.2013 granted anticipatory bail to her. Seeking to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the Accused 1 and 2 and the 3rd Accused, the de facto complainant in the said case is before this court with these criminal original petitions in Crl.O.P.No.11467 and 11466 of 2013 respectively.
2. On service of notice, the respondents 1 and 2 in Crl.O.P.No.11467 of 2013 have entered appearance and they have also filed their counter affidavits individually. The notice sent to the 1st respondent/A3 in Crl.O.P.No.11466 of 2013 has not been returned and she has not entered appearance neither in person nor through a counsel.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in both petitions and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for State in both petitions and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 in Crl.O.P.No.11467 of 2013. I have also perused the records in both the criminal original petitions carefully.
4. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in both the petitions will be referred to as the de facto complainant and the respondents 1 and 2 in Crl.O.P.No.11467 of 2013 and the 1st respondent in Crl.O.P.No.11466 of 2013 will be referred to as A1 and A2 and A3 respectively.
5. The case of the prosecution is as follows:- A total extent of 1 Acre and 42 Cents of land comprised in S.No.407/3B at Perungalathur Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu District, absolutely belongs to the Government. This land is situated just outside the Chennai Corporation's limit. The classification of the land in all Government records is shown as "vacant land" (Tharisu).
6. The 1st Accused in this case is one Viswanathan. He is a document writer in the Sub Registrar's Office at Tambaram. He knew very well about the said land and also the fact that it belongs to the Government. The 2nd Accused in this case Mrs. Asaliammal is his wife. In connivance with her husband, with a view to grab the said property, the 2nd Accused executed a General Power of Attorney on 28.08.1995 in favour of A3 – Mrs. Geetha on 28.08.1995. A3 - Mrs. Geetha is none else than an Assistant of A1. Acting on the said General Power of Attorney dated 20.08.1995, A3 – Mrs. Geetha had laid plots on the said property and sold away the plots to various persons. One such plot was sold out by A3 – Mrs. Geetha by a registered sale deed dated 12.03.2011 in favour of one Sri. S. Shanmugham. Sri. S. Shanmugam died subsequently leaving behind Accused 4, 5 and 6 as his legal heirs. Accused 4, 5 and 6 had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of one Mrs. R. Jayanthi, namely, the wife of the de facto complainant on 06.11.2008. Now, it has come to light that A1 and A2 had created and forged the revenue records as though the A2 had title for the property. With these allegations the said case has been registered.
7. In the petition in Crl.M.P.No.651 of 2013 filed before the court below A1 and A2, in paragraph 1, A1 and A2 has stated that on 05.01.1972 Mrs. Asaliammal (A2) purchased the said property measuring 1 Acre and 42 Cents from one T.N. Selvaperumal by means of an unregistered sale deed and th
