IMPORTANT POINT
Obtaining an order by omitting a material fact constitutes an act of suppression, leading to the order being set aside and cancelled.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., pleased to cancel the anticipatory bail granted in Crl.M.P.No.996 of 2023 dated 27.02.2023 passed by the Principal Sessions Court, Chengleput.)

1. This Petition has been filed by the defacto complainant in Cr.No.114 of 2023 seeking to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the second, third and fourth respondents by the learned Principal Sessions Court at Chengalpattu in Crl.M.P.No.996 of 2023 dated 27.02.203.

2. The petitioner is the defacto complainant. I realise the responsibility of being extremely careful in stating the facts of the case particularly since with respect to the property involved, there has been a long standing dispute relating to tile and also relating to possession between the petitioner on the one hand and the second, third and fourth respondents on the other hand. However, on a complaint given by the petitioner herein, FIR in Cr.No.114 of 2023 had been registered by the first respondent originally under Sections 147, 148, 447, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(i) of TN Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.

3. Seeking anticipatory bail, the second, third and fourth respondents had filed Crl.M.P.No.996 of 2023. The said petition came up for consideration before the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Chengalpattu and by an order dated 27.02.2023, the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Chengalpattu had granted anticipatory bail. The provision of law as stated by the second, third and fourth respondents herein / petitioners in that particular application / Crl.M.P.No.996 of 2023 were offences under Sections 147, 148, 447, 427, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC. The offence under Section 3(i) of TN Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 was not stated. Considering the offences which alone had been stated, anticipatory bail was granted.

4. The defacto complainant has now come before this Court seeking cancellation of that particular order by stating that the offence under Section 3(i) of TN Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 had not been mentioned in the petition seeking anticipatory bail before the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Chengalpattu and therefore, the order itself stands vitiated.

5. It is an argument putforth by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein that if the learned Principal Sessions Judge had been appraised of the complete facts and that there is also an offence under Section 3(i) of TN Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, which is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner therein, then the learned Principal Sessions Judge, might have also rejected the said application seeking anticipatory bail.

6. I am concious that we enter into a zone of probabilities on how the discretion could have been exercised by the learned Principal Sessions Judge. But as a fact, the offence under Section 3(i) of TN Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 had not been mentioned in the petition seeking anticipatory bail.

7. This Court to determine the actual facts had called for a report from the learned Principal Sessions Judge relating to all papers in Cr.No.114 of 2023 and more particularly relating to Crl.M.P.No.996 of 2023.

8. Records have been forwarded and the learned Principal Sessions Judge had forwarded the copies of the following documents:-