Judgment :- The contempt petition arose out of the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.32730 of 2007 dated 12.12.2007. By the aforesaid order, this Court granted anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner in the OP and the respondent in the contempt. Anticipatory Bail was granted on usual terms of petitioner executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-with two sureties and also to appear before the investigation officer every day for one week and thereafter as and when required for interrogation after his release on bail. 2. During the course of the order, in paragraphs 5 and 6, this Court recorded as follows:- "5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner already had executed a deed for cancellation of the release deed, which was issued in his favour. Now an affidavit by the petitioner has also been filed before this Court, in which it is stated that the petitioner had appeared before the Sub Registrar Office at Tambaram and executed a deed for cancellation of the release deed dated 29.07.2004 and further the petitioner assures that he will not make any claim or whatsoever in respect of the property, which is the subject matter of this case and he is also ready to cooperate with the defacto complainant before the Civil Court, if any remedy is sought for by the defacto complainant. 6. In view of the undertaking given by the petitioner and in view of the affidavit filed by the petitioner and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Office within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on his appearance, in the event of arrest, he shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions." 3. The present contempt petitioner is the defacto complainant. He has filed the contempt alleging that the respondent has disobeyed the undertaking given by him. 4. On 18.03.2010, this Court directed both parties to appear before the Court. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for the parties to arrive at a settlement. 5. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 25.03.2010. An additional counter affidavit was also filed on 22.04.2010. 4. On 18.03.2010, this Court directed both parties to appear before the Court. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for the parties to arrive at a settlement. 5. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 25.03.2010. An additional counter affidavit was also filed on 22.04.2010. Though Sub-Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, I/C Team XV, Chennai -8, was not a party to the contempt, this Court directed notice to be given to the learned Public Prosecutor, who appeared in the Crl.OP. Pursuant to the said direction, the Investigation Officer has filed a counter affidavit dated 03.03.2010. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The contention of the petitioner was that her sister Catherine purchased a land and building at No.173, Selaiyur Village. After her demise, the petitioner and her another sister Maggie Pappie are the only surviving legal heirs. The respondent, who is the grand son of the late sister of the petitioner and her other sister brought him up since he was a child. The respondent misusing the Trust as he was the grandson of one of their sister clandestinely removed the documents of the title pertaining to the aforesaid property and fabricated certain release deed. The petitioner had preferred a complaint against the respondent. The complaint was registered as Crime No.536 of 2007 with the Central Crime Branch, Land Grabbing Cell. The respondent admitted fabrication of the document and subsequent registration relating to the property. 8. The respondent filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.No.32730 of 2007. The petitioner filed intervening application to assist the prosecution. Anticipatory Bail was granted on the conditions indicated above. It is only on that condition the respondent was released on anticipatory bail. Since the cancellation deed of a fraudulent release deed could not be termed as annulling document, the petitioner had also filed a suit in O.S.No.81 of 2008 on the file of the Sub-Court, Chengelpet for a declaration that the Release Deed dated 29.07.2004 registered as Document No.4969 of 2004 as ab initio, null and void and non-est in law. She had also filed interim application for injunction regarding the undertaking given by him in the Crl.O.P. The respondent took time to file written statement. Since there was delay in filing written statement, he was set ex parte. The respondent also filed an application to set aside the ex parte order along with the written statement. She had also filed interim application for injunction regarding the undertaking given by him in the Crl.O.P. The respondent took time to file written statement. Since there was delay in filing written statement, he was set ex parte. The respondent also filed an application to set aside the ex parte order along with the written statement. Contrary to the undertaking, he has filed the written statement reiterating the genuineness of the alleged release deed. This written statement is a breach of undertaking given before this Court. Hence, the present contempt. 9. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that he went to register a cancellation of the release deed before the Sub-Registrar, Tambaram. But the Sub-Registrar refused to register the cancellation deed as it could be done only by the Executor namely Catherina. In the affidavit, he had stated that he will not make any claim in respect of the property and was ready to give No Objection before the Civil Court. Even in the absence of the release deed, he is entitled to 1/3rd share in the property and his right of 1/3rd share in the property cannot be taken away. Therefore, when he state that he will not make any claim over the property, it only meant that he will not make any claim over the petitioner's share. Anticipatory Bail was granted after recording that he was ready to cooperate with the defacto complainant. The petitioner has already filed a suit for appropriate relief. In the IA seeking for interim injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the possession of the property, he merely contended that he was co-owner of the property and living in the suit property and hence opposed the interim injunction. Since release deed itself is the subject matter of criminal case and the same is accepted in the civil suit, it will totally destroy his defence in the criminal case. The petitioner and her sister Maggie Pappie are celibates and they are in the old age. The second plaintiff in the suit namely the sister of the petitioner has become insane and unfit to prosecute the suit. 10. In the additional counter affidavit, he had stated that the suit filed by the petitioner was transferred to the Sub-Court, Tambaram and re-numbered as O.S.No.10 of 20078. The second plaintiff in the suit namely the sister of the petitioner has become insane and unfit to prosecute the suit. 10. In the additional counter affidavit, he had stated that the suit filed by the petitioner was transferred to the Sub-Court, Tambaram and re-numbered as O.S.No.10 of 20078. He has already filed a memorandum expressing No objection in respect of grant of declaratory relief and he has complied with the undertaking given before this Court. 11. In the counter affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer, it was stated that the investigation revealed that the accused with the assistance of two unknown persons have committed impersonation in registering the document and they have violated Sections 419 r/w 109, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 467 IPC and the case has been taken on file by the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet in C.C.No.11315/08. The matter is posted for examination of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, at this juncture for the petitioner to file a contempt on the basis of the order passed in Crl.OP is nothing but an attempt to put the respondent defenceless in the criminal trial. 12. The Constitution fully protects an accused in a criminal trial in terms of Article 20(3) against self incrimination. Therefore, nothing prevents the petitioner agitating her claim before the Civil court for the relief claimed by her or in the alternative to make herself to assist the prosecution in the criminal case. But on no account, this Court can be used in a contempt proceedings as an executing court to help the petitioner in recovering the property which is allegedly sought to be taken away by the respondent. 13. However the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2008) 10 SCC 711 [Chintala Syamala v. Chintala Venkata Satyanarayana Rao] for contending that the respondent cannot be allowed to escape from the undertaking given by him. 14. The learned counsel also referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2008) 14 SCC 561 [Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai and another v. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai and others] to contend that by merely filing an apology, the respondent cannot escape from the undertaking given by him and in case of contempt, it is the duty of the Courts to maintain their dignity and majesty of law. 15. 15. It is not clear as to how in a petition for anticipatory bail, a person who is standing as an accused can be made to accept obligations only with a view to get him relieved. If such undertakings are enforced, it may also prejudice the criminal trial in which he is now facing serious charges. If the petitioner wants to use the affidavit and the order passed by this Court in the criminal proceedings, then nothing prevents her from doing so but she cannot further use the contempt power of this Court to a further concession from the respondent. Even otherwise the defence taken by the respondent in the counter affidavit can be said to be a plausible defence. As stated by him, he had approached the Registrar who had refused to register the cancellation deed standing in the name of some other dead person. He had also stated that in the Sub-court, he had filed a no objection memo conceding the case of the petitioner. Though the petitioner contended that the Registrar has no power to cancel a document, a Full Bench of this Court vide its judgment reported in 2011 (1) LW 673 = 2011 (2) CTC 1 [M/s. Latif Estate Line India v. Mrs. Hadeeja Ammal] has held that the Registrar can cancel a document on the circumstances set out in the Full Bench and the exception pointed out by the Full Bench also applies to the case of the petitioner. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to take appropriate steps. But at the same time, being the grand son of the deceased, the statement made by the respondent that he is entitled for a share cannot be rejected by forcing him to part with the property and it is is open to him to contend in accordance with law about his entitlement for the share. Even if he was convicted for some reason in the criminal case, that cannot deprive his rightful share in the property if he is otherwise entitled to. The decisions cited by the petitioner has no application to the case on hand. 16. Hence, the contempt petition stands dismissed.