Gandhi Selvam vs. The Inspector Of Police
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, accused in Crime No. 942 of 2021 registered at Kulithalai Police Station, sought anticipatory bail. The de-facto complainant alleged that the first petitioner, Gandhi Selvam, with whom she married in 2009, later deserted her. He then allegedly started living with her and assisting in her business, 'Preethi Home Appliances'. During the COVID-19 pandemic, when she was at home, Gandhi Selvam allegedly started a new business on 06/10/2014. When she visited the shop, she was allegedly intimidated, abused, and assaulted by all the accused. A compromise was reached during an inquiry. Subsequently, she discovered that the ownership of the shop was transferred to the third petitioner, Loganathan (Gandhi Selvam's brother-in-law), by forging her signature. A sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- invested by her was allegedly misappropriated, and the original documents were taken by Gandhi Selvam. The petitioners claimed the de-facto complainant borrowed Rs. 4,00,000/- from the first petitioner's father, and the case was falsely lodged due to disputes over repayment. They also alleged the de-facto complainant assaulted an employee.
Held
The Court, considering the facts and circumstances, was inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The Court noted that the dispute involved continuous trouble between the de-facto complainant and the petitioners regarding the running of the shop. It acknowledged that whether the first petitioner had an affair with the de-facto complainant was a matter for investigation. The Court observed that while the petitioners produced documents showing a rental agreement and GST registration in the third petitioner's name, the de-facto complainant presented documents showing the cancellation of a rental agreement and a subsequent one involving the third accused. The discrepancy between the business name 'Preethi Furniture Mart' run by the de-facto complainant and 'Preethi Home Appliances' registered for GST was also noted as a matter for investigation. The alleged transfer of ownership and the signing of documents by the first petitioner as a witness were also highlighted as requiring investigation. The Court did not decide on the guilt or innocence of the petitioners but granted bail to facilitate further investigation.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. given the allegations of criminal intimidation, assault, cheating, and forgery? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the de-facto complainant borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the father of the first petitioner, and the current dispute arose from the demand for repayment. They asserted that the case was falsely lodged. They also pointed to a rental agreement between the third petitioner and the fifth petitioner, with a GST registration in the third petitioner's name, suggesting legitimate business operations. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondent police did not present specific arguments in the provided text, but the prosecution's case, as detailed in the facts, formed the basis of the FIR. The de-facto complainant reiterated the allegations made in her complaint.
Sections Cited
Section 438 Cr.P.C., Section 294(b) IPC, Section 354(b) IPC, Section 376(2)(F) IPC, Section 406 IPC, Section 420 IPC, Section 506(i) IPC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER : The Court made the following order:- The petitioners apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under sections 294(b), 354 (b), 376(2)(F), 406, 420 and 506(i) IPC, in Crime No.942 of 2021, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution in brief:- The de-facto complainant, who is the intervener herein is running a shop called 'Preethi Home Appliances' in the building owned by one Ganesan. In 2009, the de-facto complainant married one Gandhi Selvan in Palani. This was brought to the notice of her husband namely Selvan. On coming to know about, the said Selvan deserved the de-facto complainant. Later he started living with the above said Gandhi Selvam. He is also helping their business. Due to the Corona, she happened to stay in her house. Taking advantage of the same, the said Gandhi started running a business on 06/10/2014. When he visited the shop, she was criminally intimidated and abused and assaulted by all the accused persons. Based on the complaint given 1/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by the above said Mahalakshmi, enquiry was undertaken. During the course of enquiry, there was a compromise between them. Later, it came to her notice that by forged her signature, the documents transferred the ownership of the shop in the name of his brother in law namely Loganathan. Now he is running a shop in the name and style of Preethi Home Appliances. They also misappropriated a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- invested by the de-facto complainant. The original document was also taken by the above said Gandhi. On the basis of the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, the above said complaint has been registered for the offence under stated above. 3.Seeking anticipatory bail, the petitioners filed this petition, when the case was under the enquiry stage and later after registration of the FIR, this petition has been amended. 4.Now the case of the petitioners is that A1 is working as police constable in Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Department and A2 is his wife. A3 is his brother in law. A4 is his relative. A5 is the owner of the Complex. The de-facto complainant borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the father of A1 namely Subbaih. When the money was demanded back, trouble arose between them. Based upon the above said issue only, this false case has been lodged. On 24/10/2021, the de-facto complainant along with other persons visited the shop and assaulted one employee called ' Mahalakshmi'. 5.The intervener, who is the de-facto complainant has filed intervening petition and she reiterated the very same things, as mentioned in the complaint. 6.Reading of the complaint as well as the defence of the petitioners, it is seen that there is a continuous trouble between the de-facto complainant and the petitioners for running the shop. Whether A1 is having affairs with the de-facto complainant, is a matter for investigation. The document that has been produced by the petitioners shows that there was a rental agreement between the 3rd petitioner and the 5th petitioner herein and GST registration certificate is also standing in the name of the 3rd petitioner. But however the intervener has produced the document showing the cancellation of rental agreement and subsequent rental agreement between the 3rd accused. So these are the disputed documents. 7.As mentioned above, A1 alleged to have transferred the ownership of the shop in the name of A3 and started running business. The de-facto complainant allowed the owner of the concerned shop. How it was transferred in the name of A3 is a matter for investigation. The cancellation of the lease agreement between A5 and the de-facto complainant has also been enclosed. But we find that the name of the concern, that was run by the de-facto complainant, is called as Preethi Furniture Mart. But whereas in the GST, we find that the name recorded as Preethi Home Appliances. Whether these concerns are one and the same is the matter for investigation. Now A3 entered into a rental agreement with A5 on 16/07/2021 to run a business called Preethi Furniture and Electronics and the termination of lease agreement was signed on 20/07/2021 and within 3 days, it appears that the above said 2/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ agreement was entered into between A3 and A5, wherein A1 has signed as a witnesses. Whether this is a forged document or not is also a matter for investigation. Whether the signature of the de-facto complainant has been forged by the petitioners is a matter for investigation. 8.Considering the above facts and circumstances of this case, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 9.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kulithalai and on each of them executing a 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 learned Magistrate concerned and the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail will stand dismissed. 11/01/2022 // / /2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, KULITHALAI. 2 DO THORUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KARUR. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KULITHALAI POLICE STATION, KARUR DISTRICT. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. AYYADURAI.V. Advocate SR.No.210 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.19474 of 2021 Date :11/01/2022 RS/PN/SAR.2(19.01.2022) 3P-6C 3/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.