Crl.M.P. No.984 of 2024 Page No.
1 of 6
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHENGALPATTU
Present : Tmt.J.Mavis Deepika Sundaravadhana, M.A., M.L.,
Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu.
Date : Tuesday, the 30th day of April 2024.
Crl.M.P. No.984 of 2024
(CNR No. TNKP01-001711-2024)
1. V.G. Thirumalai, aged 58 years, S/o.Govindasamy,
No.63/2, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Malaiyadi,
Venpakkam, Chengalpattu District – 603 111.
2. Tamil @ Tamilselvan, aged 35 years, S/o.Elumalai,
No.62/2, Pillaiyar koil Street, Malaiyadi,
Venpakkam, Chengalpattu District – 603 111.
3. Deva @ Devarajan, aged 48 years, S/o.Munusamy,
No.134, 2nd Malai Street, Alapakkam,
Vallam, Chengalpattu District.
.. Petitioners/accused
//Versus//
State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by Inspector of Police,
Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station
Cr. No.114 of 2023 .. Respondent/Complainant
Under Sections 147, 148, 447, 427, 294(b), 506(ii) IPC
r/w Sec.3(1) of TNPPDL Act
// and //
Parthasarathy, aged 47 years .. Intervener/defacto complainant
S/o.Kathirvel @ Sivaprakasam in Crl.M.P. No.1071 of 2024
This petition has been filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to
grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me, in the
presence of M/s.N.Kanakaraj, the learned counsel for the Petitioners/
accused, and of Thiru.R.Thirumurugan, the learned Public Prosecutor
Crl.M.P. No.984 of 2024 Page No.2 of 6
appearing for the respondent/complainant, and of M/s.R.N.Ganesh, the
learned counsel for the Intervener/defacto complainant, upon hearing both
side arguments and upon perusal of case records this Court made the
following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused, seeking
anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest, concerned in Cr. No.114 of
2023 of Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station, which was registered for the
alleged offences U/s.147, 148, 447, 427, 294(b), 506(ii) IPC r/w Sec.3(1) of
TNPPDL Act.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, originally
the disputed property belongs to the 1st petitioner, and the revenue records
stands in his name. However, the defacto complainant claims that the said
property belongs to him, and further, a Civil Suit in O.S. No.174/2011 is
pending before the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu. While so, a false
case has been registered based on the complaint given by the defacto
complainant. Subsequently, the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail
by this Cour as per the order in Crl.M.P. No.996 of 2023 dated 27.02.2023.
However, the defacto complainant approached the Hon’ble High Court,
Madras in Crl.O.P. No.5808 of 2023, seeking cancellation of anticipatory
bail already granted to the petitioners by this Court on 27.02.2023, on the
ground, no anticipatory bail granded under section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act.
The Hon’ble High Court, Madras by order dated 28.03.2024 pleased to
cancel the anticipatory bail alredy granted to the petitioners, by granting
opportunity to the petitioners to file a fresh anticipatory bail application
before this Court, incorporating the provision U/s.3(1) of TNPPDL Act.
Crl.M.P. No.984 of 2024 Page No.3 of 6
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that,
the disputed property belongs to the 1st petitioner, and also a civil suit is
pending before the competent Civil Court. But, the defacto complainant
without any legal right over the disputed property, entered into the disputed
property, demolished the constructions. Subsequently lodged a false
complaint as though the petitioners demolished their property. He further
submitted, the civil dispute is between two individual parties, and hence
section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act would not attracted. He also relied upon the
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras between
R.Vijayalakshmi – V. - State reported in 2021(2)MWN (Cr.)317 and prays
to grant anticiaptory bail to the petitiones.
4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that
the disputed property is in possession of the 1 st petitioner, and the Revenue
Records stands in the name of him. While so, on the fateful day, both the
parties were assaulted each other and destroyed the premises and prays for
the dismissal of the petition. He also filed the written objection of the
Inspector of Police.
5. The learned counsel who appeared for the intervener/defacto
complainant argued that, the disputed property has been allotted to the
father of the defacto complainant by Government as Aadi Dravida property
(Punchami land) and his family membes are residing in the property and
carrying on agricultural activities. He further submitted that on 09.02.2023
the Executive Engineer of TNEB has sent a letter to the petitioner regarding
the activating the EB supply as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
which shows the defacto complainant's family is in possession of the said
Crl.M.P. No.984 of 2024 Page No.4 of 6
property. He further contended that, it is the clear case of committed
offence comes under TNPPDL Act and prays for the dismissal of the
petition.
6. Heard both sides and records perused.
7. The petitioners filed application seeking anticipatory bail for the
offences U/s.147, 148, 447, 427, 294(b), 506(ii) IPC r/w Sec.3(1) of
TNPPDL Act. Originally FIR was registered for the offences U/s.147, 148,
447, 294(b), 506(ii) IPC, Sec.3(1) of TNPPDL Act, 1992 against the above
three petitioners and 40 other persons, whose name is not known.
8. The petitioners herein originally filed anticipatory bail application
for the offences U/s.147, 148, 447, 427, 294(b), 506(ii) IPC. The police
submitted reply for the above said sections only, thereby, this court
considering anticipatory bail application.
9. Thereafter, the defacto complainant took the matter to the Hon’ble
High Court, Madras filing application to cancel the anticipatory bail already
granted by this Court, alleging there is suppression of facts. The Hon’ble
High Court, Madras by order dated 28.03.2024, granting opportunity to the
accused herein to file fresh anticipatory bail application incorporating the
section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. The observation of the Hon’ble High Court,
Madras is reproduced hereunder:
... an opportunity is granted to the
second, third and fourth respondents to
file a fresh anticipatory bail
application in manner known to law
incorporating the offence under section
3(i) of TN Public Property (Prevention
of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 and
Crl.M.P. No.984 of 2024 Page No.5 of 6
thereafter, let proper procedure be
followed to examine whether that
provision still survives or has been
dropped in manner known to law and
thereafter, let a considered order be
passed by the Court where the
anticipatory bail application is filed.
Since the anticipatory bail had been
granted earlier, protection from any
coercive action till 19.04.2024 is
granted, by which date, the second,
thrid and fourth respondents must file
necessary application.’
10. The Hon’ble High Court, Madras directed to consider whether
the provision U/s./3(1) of TNPPDL is dropped or still survives. In the reply
given by the police, it is stated, the alteration report dropping the provision
U/s.3(1) TNPPDL Act was failed to submit before the Magistrate, by the
earlier Inspector of Police. But, it is evident, alteration report was
submitted before the Magistrate only on 05.04.2024, after the above order
of the Hon’ble High Court, Madras dated 28.03.2024.
11. It is true that the police failed to submit the altereation report
before the learned Magistrate dropping the section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act,
when earlier anticipatory bnail application considered by this Court. The
reasons stated by the Inspector of Police that the previous Inspector failed to
submit the alteration report dropping the provisions under TNPPDL Act. It
is true that on the day when the present anticipaoty bail application came
up for hearing, the alteration report droping the section 3(1) of TNPPDL
Act is submitted before the Magistrate.
Crl.M.P. No.984 of 2024 Page No.6 of 6
12. Considering the fact that the police submitted the alteration
report only on 05.04.2024 – after the order of the Hon’ble High Court dated
28.03.2024, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail for the
reason, the alteration report received by the learned Magistrate only on
05.04.2024, not before. This Court not satisfied with the reply of the
police, thereby not accepted the version of the Police. Therefore, not
inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
As the result, this petition is dismissed. However, considering the
facts and circumstances, and the dispute is with respect to property, to
provide an opportunity to the accused to approach the Hon’ble High
Court, it is appropriate to pass an order, directing the police, not to
arrest the petitioners/accused till 07.06.2024.
Pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 30th day of April 2024.
Principal District
Judge
Digitally signed by J
J MAVIS DEEPIKA MAVIS DEEPIKA
SUNDARAVADHANA
SUNDARAVADHANA
Location:
Chengalpattu
Date: 2024.04.30
21:24:03 +0530
Seal Principal Sessions Judge,
Chengalpattu.
