Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1544 (MAD)

Elephant G. Rajendran v. Commissioner of Police

2013-04-05

R.SUBBIAH

body2013
JUDGMENT Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 307 and 420 IPC, petitioner has filed this petition under section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail. 2. Petitioner has been arrayed as A1 in the complaint lodged against him and another by one R. Raghupathi. 3. Case of the prosecution is that a complaint was lodged by one R. Raghupathy stating that one P.T. Perumal, a practising Advocate is his friend. A1 – Elephant Rajendran is also a practising Advocate. A2 – Gopinath is the co-brother of A1. P.T. Perumal requested the defacto complainant to give financial assistance to A1 for promoting a layout by name “Elephant Satellite City” meant for providing housing plots for subordinate Judicial Officers in the State of Tamilnadu and he showed nearly 25 acres of land at Sastrambakkam Village on the western side of Singaperumal Koil. Further P.T. Perumal informed him that A1 had already negotiated with the land owners to purchase the said land and hence he is in need of Rs. 25 lakhs to purchase the land in question. The said Perumal further informed the defacto complainant that he cannot help him directly to A1 and as such, he introduced one Devaraj, who is doing real estate business and he would be in a position to help A1. Thus, he introduced the said Devaraj to A1. Thereafter, P.T. Perumal, Devaraj and A1 visited the land in question on several occasions and negotiated with the land owners with the help of Sekar, Elumalai and Chandran, who are the local residents. A1 also promised the de-facto complainant that there would be good returns in the business and in the event of non-refund of money from the sale of plots, he would dispose his land at kumbakonam and repay the loan. Further, A1 has also promised the said Devaraj and Perumal that he would give each two plots to them if the deal is completed. Believing these words, the de-facto complainant made payments to the extent of Rs.24.20 lakhs in the presence of P.T. Perumal and others on various occasions during the period from 05.11.2007 to 06.01.2008. Some payments were made by undated cheques, obtained as security by the de-facto complainant. Thereafter, A1 executed sale agreements with the land owners in the name of A2, a common friend Devaraj and the de-facto complainant. Some payments were made by undated cheques, obtained as security by the de-facto complainant. Thereafter, A1 executed sale agreements with the land owners in the name of A2, a common friend Devaraj and the de-facto complainant. Thereafter, there was no progress in the scheme. There was no sign of return of money. Hence, the de-facto complainant asked A1 for accounts for which, A1 stated that he had given bribe money of Rs.5 lakhs to some officers to influence their Association to purchase 250 plots. Further, he had made payment of Rs.5 lakhs to a local leader to influence the land owners and to make them to accept execution of sale agreement for very low advance. Thereafter, when the de-facto complainant approached A1 through his friend Perumal demanding return of money, he challenged them to take any action they wanted to take and further replied that the entire project will collapse and hence, he could not return the money to the de-facto complainant. Hence, the de-facto complainant filed the complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City to initiate appropriate action against A1 and A2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 submitted that actually the friend of A1, viz., P.T. Perumal developed few layouts. One such layout developed by him was at Sastrambakkam Village. Absolutely, petitioner has no rule to play in the project and he never received any money or handled any money. Absolutely, no material was produced by the prosecution to show that a sum of Rs.24 lakhs has been paid neither to A1 nor to A2. Learned counsel, by inviting the attention of this court to various sale agreements entered with the land owners, and submitted that in all the sale agreements entered with the land owners, and submitted that in all the sale agreements, the de-facto complainant Raghupathy is also one of the parties. Therefore, the question of cheating the de-facto complainant does not arise in this case. Further, he brought to the knowledge of this Court to certain averments made in the complaint and submitted that those averments deal with the alleged conversation transpired between P.T. Perumal, Devaraj and A1. The de-facto complainant came into picture only at a later point of time. Therefore, the said averments found in the complaint would clearly show that the present complaint was filed only at the instigation of said P.T. Perumal. The de-facto complainant came into picture only at a later point of time. Therefore, the said averments found in the complaint would clearly show that the present complaint was filed only at the instigation of said P.T. Perumal. In this regard, the learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has filed a writ petition against the then Chairman of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and on account of the conduct of P.T. Perumal in the said case, he terminated his relationship with him. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that he is a leading practising advocate and he will co-operate with the enquiry. Hence, there is no need of custodial interrogation in this case. 5. On the contrary, learned public prosecutor submitted that the investigation revealed that the entire transaction took place only in the office of A1. On 05.11.2007, when A1 approached the de-facto complainant through P.T. Perumal, he agreed to give financial assistance. The de-facto complainant entered into an agreement with 18 owners and paid Rs.80,000/- on 05.11.2007 to 4 different vendors on 06.11.2007 the de-facto complainant has paid Rs.10 lakhs in the presence of Perumal and Devaraj to A1. On 14.11.2007 another sum of Rs.1,40,000/- was paid to A1. On 24.12.2007, Rs.6,00,000/-was paid by the de-facto complainant in the presence of P.T. Perumal and Devaraj to A1. On 05.01.2008, another Rs.6 lakhs was paid in cash, for which, A1 issued a cheque for Rs.5 lakhs and A2 issued another cheque for Rs. One lakh in favour of the de-facto complainant. Thus, in total, a sum of Rs.24.20 lakhs was paid. These amounts were paid to A1 only on the promise given by A1 to the de-facto complainant that he would get good returns from the business. But, subsequently, neither the project was implemented nor the amount was returned, but A1 went to the extent of saying that he cannot return the amount. Therefore, it is a clear intention of cheating on the part of A1. Therefore, his custodial interrogation is necessary. Thus, the learned public prosecutor opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail. 6. Learned counsel for the intervener also vehementy opposed for granting anticipatory bail stating that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. If he let out, he will hamper the investigation and tamper with the evidence and as such, his custodial interrogation is very much necessary. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the intervener also vehementy opposed for granting anticipatory bail stating that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. If he let out, he will hamper the investigation and tamper with the evidence and as such, his custodial interrogation is very much necessary. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner/A1 approached the de-facto complainant through witnesses P.T. Perumal and Devaraj and made him to believe that if he provided financial assistance to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs, A1 can invest the same in the real estate business and he would get good returns and also promised Devaraj and P.T. Perumal that they would get each two plots. Believing the same, the de-facto complainant paid Rs.25 lakhs and odd and thereafter, the accused neither developed the land nor returned the amount. According to the prosecution, when they asked the amount, he refused to return the same. But it is the case of the petitioner that he is no way connected with the de-facto complainant and the de-facto complainant never paid the amount. In fact, in all the sale agreements entered with the land owners, the de-facto complainant is one of the parties along with A2 and Devarajan. It is the further submission of the petitioner that the question of cheating does not arise and above all, absolutely there is no evidence to show that the de-facto complainant has advanced the amount. 9. On a perusal of the entire materials available on record, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that no documentary evidence such as receipt, etc. is available to show that the petitioner has received the amount. But, according to the de-facto complainant, these amounts were paid in the presence of Devaraj and P.T. Perumal. The prosecution mainly relied on two cheques issued by A1 for Rs.5 lakhs and another cheque issued by A2 for Rs. one lakh in favour of the de-facto complainant and thus, submitted that these accused persons and the de-facto complainant. But it is the reply of the petitioner that these two cheques were given to P.T. Perumal since he needs financial help from the accused persons, but subsequently the cheques were misused by the de-facto complainant. 10. one lakh in favour of the de-facto complainant and thus, submitted that these accused persons and the de-facto complainant. But it is the reply of the petitioner that these two cheques were given to P.T. Perumal since he needs financial help from the accused persons, but subsequently the cheques were misused by the de-facto complainant. 10. Irrespective of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the main apprehension of the de-facto complainant is that if the petitioner is let out on anticipatory bail, he may tamper the evidence. But, even according to the complainant, the amounts were paid only in the presence of P.T. Perumal and Devaraj, who are the close friends of the de-facto complainant. That apart, the de-facto complainant is also in possession of two cheques issued by A1 and A2. Even according to the prosecution, except these cheques, no material is available with them. In this situation, absolutely, there is no need for custodial interrogation, particularly when it is the case of the prosecution that except two cheques, no evidence is available with them to show the payment. Moreover, when Devaraj and P.T. Perumal are the close friends of the de-facto complainant, the question of tampering with the evidence does not arise in this case. Further, I am of the view that by granting anticipatory bail, no prejudice would be caused and there is no need for custodial interrogation. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail, in the event of arrest, on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) together with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, and on further condition that he shall appear before the respondent police every day at 5.00 PM for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required. Petitioner shall surrender before the Court referred to above, for executing the bond and furnishing sureties within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, this order shall stand cancelled.