Judgment : 1. Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. Offences alleged are under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of IPC. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter relates to sale of an immovable property, sale agreement, cancellation of sale agreement and return of advance money. It is a civil dispute. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that to recover the advance amount, defacto complainant had also filed a civil suit. Petitioner also filed a suit for injunction to protect his possession. Suits are pending. While so, to circumvent the process of Civil law, defacto complainant indulged in abusing the process of criminal law. A civil case is being converted as a criminal case. She filed a police complaint to recover the disputed money through police. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the case is based on documents. Petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation agency. He will not abscond. He is also ailing out of heart ailments. Medical records also produced. In the circumstances, he may be granted anticipatory bail. 6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenor contended that the petitioner has committed forgery. He had manufactured a forged cancellation agreement. It is to cheat the defacto complainant of Rs.30 lakhs. He did not return her money. He had not produced cancellation agreement in the Court. Neither the sale deed was executed nor the advance amount was returned. If he is granted anticipatory bail, he will misuse his liberty and tamper the evidence. 7. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the averments in the anticipatory bail petition, intervening petition and the type set of documents filed. 8. Veerasamy (petitioner), Arunachalam (defacto complainant's husband) are Iyappa devotees. Lord Iyappa brought them together. The devotees are now at their loggerheads. It is because of a property transaction. 9. Petitioner owns a prime property in Tiruppur Town. On 10.9.2010, under a sale agreement, he had agreed to sell it to defacto complainant for Rs.60 lakhs. Under the agreement, he had received an advance of Rs.30 lakhs. Time has been made essence of contract. 10. Petitioner says that on 24.2.2011, by a mutual agreement, the said sale agreement was cancelled and the amount was also paid to the defacto complainant. Under the agreement, he had received an advance of Rs.30 lakhs. Time has been made essence of contract. 10. Petitioner says that on 24.2.2011, by a mutual agreement, the said sale agreement was cancelled and the amount was also paid to the defacto complainant. However, the defacto complainant denounces execution of cancellation agreement, denies receipt of Rs.30 lakhs and alleges it a rank forgery. In this connection, there are exchange of lawyer notices. 11. Under the circumstances, defacto complainant instituted a suit in O.S.No.317 of 2013 in the District Court, Tiruppur as against the petitioner for return of the advance amount of Rs.30 lakhs. Inter alia she alleged that the cancellation agreement stated to have been executed on 24.2.2011 is forged one. Petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.362 of 2013 as against the defacto complainant in the Court of District Munsif, Tiruppur seeking injunction to protect his possession of the property covered under the sale agreement dated 10.9.2010. 12. It has been contended on behalf of the defacto complainant that till date the petitioner had not produced his so called cancellation agreement dated 24.2.2011 in the Civil Court. 13. It is pertinent here to note that the principle of onus is that if no evidence is let in who will fail upon whom the burden of proof lies. Thus, if the alleged cancellation agreement and the proof for payment (plea of discharge) are not produced before the Civil Court, petitioner (defendant) will fail in the Civil Court. That is a different matter. 14. Under these circumstances, the defacto complainant filed a police complaint on 8.1.2014. On that, this case in Crime No.49 of 2014 for offences under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of IPC has been registered. It is being investigation into. 15. The plaint pleadings in O.S.No.317 of 2013 forms the nucleus for the police complaint. Now, what the defacto complainant(plaintiff) wants is return of Rs.30 lakhs. Already, she had gone to the Civil Court for the relief of return of the said amount. She must await the decision of the Civil Court. While so, Police Station and Criminal Courts cannot be used to collect the disputed amount without a Civil Court decree, without an Execution Petition. Police Station and Criminal Courts are interchangeble for Civil Courts and Execution Courts. 16. Already we have stated about the nature of the transaction/case. It is also based on documents. While so, Police Station and Criminal Courts cannot be used to collect the disputed amount without a Civil Court decree, without an Execution Petition. Police Station and Criminal Courts are interchangeble for Civil Courts and Execution Courts. 16. Already we have stated about the nature of the transaction/case. It is also based on documents. Documentary evidence is going to be the base material both for the police case as well as civil case. The decision to be taken in the Civil Court will have its repercussion in the police case. 17. In the facts and circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary, except to harass him. Further, the petitioner is also ready to co-operate with the investigation agency. He is also ailing. His abscondance is quite unlikely. 18. In the circumstances, I am inclined to grant him pre-arrest bail. 19. Ordered as under :- (i) Anticipatory bail granted. (ii) Petitioner shall surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur, within 15 days of receipt of a copy of this order; (iii) Petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousands only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate; (iv) Petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.