IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.03.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.4336 of 2025 S. Nalini ... Petitioner Versus

1.The State Rep.by its, The Inspector of Police, Jayakonadam Police Station, Jayakonadam, Ariyalur District.

(Crime No.213 of 2024, dated 27.05.2024)

2. Selvam

3. Mayavel

4. Suresh ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to set aside the order dated 17.12.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.2440 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur Session Division, Ariyalur.

For Petitioner : Mr. P. Tamilavel For Respondents : Mr. R. Vinothraja, (for R1)

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

: Mr. K. Ramesh (for R2 & R3)

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2440 of 2024 dated 17.12.2024, which dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/de-facto complainant to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents 2 to 4/accused.

2. The respondents 2 to 4 are the accused in the complaint lodged by the petitioner in Crime No.213 of 2024, registered for the offence under Sections 294(b), 427, 448 and 506(i) of IPC., on the file of the first respondent.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

4. On perusal of the First Information Report, anticipating arrest by the first respondent, the accused/respondents 2 to 4 filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.2252 of 2024, seeking anticipatory bail before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Ariyalur, which was granted on 14.06.2024, on their assurance that they would not enter into the petitioner's premises and would not disturb the petitoner's peaceful possession and enjoyment. However, after granting anticipatory bail to the respondents 2 to 4, they again distrubed the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The respondents 2 to 4 locked the petitioner's premises. Immediately, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the first respondent. On receipt of the such complaint, the first respondent found that the respondents 2 to 4 had not obeyed the order and had interfered with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property.

5. That apart, though the respondents 2 to 4 provided an undertaking before the Trial Cout when considering the anticipatory bail, the Trial Court did not impose any condition that the respondents 2 to 4 would not disturb the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

6.The petitioner along with one another, has already filed a suit in O.S.NO.58 of 2024, seeking a permanent injunction, which is pending without any injuction order before the learned District Judge, Ariyalur.

Therefore, the application in Crl.M.P.No.2440 of 2024 filed by the petitioner, seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail for the respondents 2 to 4, was rightly dismissed on 17.12.2024. This Court finds no infirimity or illegality on the dismissal of the said petition.

7. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directs that the respondents 2 to 4 shall not intefered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's premises. If the premises owned by the petitioner are disturbed or if the respondents 2 to 4 cause any violation, the petitioner is at liberty to lodge a complaint against them. The first respondent shall proceed with the complaint, register a case based on the said complaint, and proceed in accordance with law.

8. With the above observations and directions, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

18.03.2025 Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order klt To

1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur Session Division, Ariyalur.

2. The Inspector of Police, Jayakonadam