Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2376 (MAD)

P. K. Muthusamy v. State

2019-09-12

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, M.SATHYANARAYANAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. The petitioner is arrayed as A.5 in Cr.No.1 of 2018 registered by the respondent police for the alleged commission of the offences under Sections 120-B, 465, 468, 471 and 420 I.P.C., on the basis of the complaint given by the defacto complainant, namely, K.S.Jagannathan, who is also the intervenor herein. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the defacto complainant/intervenor is the owner of the property admeasuring an extent of 8.16 acres comprised in S.F.No.867/2, Athiyamankottai village, Dharmapuri District and the said property was owned by his father-in-law, namely, T.S.Srinivasan. The father-in-law of the defacto complainant, namely, T.S.Srinivasan, died leaving behind his mother, namely, T.S.Varadhambal and she executed a registered sale deed dated 08.07.2008 in favour of the defacto complainant. 3. It is the specific case of the defacto complainant/intervenor that one R.Rajendran/A.2 and Nagaraj/A.1 connived and colluded for the purpose of grabbing the said property and with that criminal intention in mind, Nagaraj/A.1 had approached his Advocate, namely, P.V.Ravi/A.3. P.V.Ravi/A.3 used to appear for Nagaraj/A.1 for all civil and criminal cases and he along with Nagaraj/A.1 and R.Rajendran/A.2 had entered into criminal conspiracy and instituted an arbitral proceedings in AR.O.P.No.36 of 2014. R.Rajendran/A.2 is the petitioner therein and Nagaraj/A.1 is the respondent therein. It is the case of the Rajendran/A.2, in the said arbitral proceedings that the Nagaraj/A.1/respondent therein for meeting up the family expenses and for improving his land, had mortgaged the landed property admeasuring to an extent of 3.30.5 Hectares in S.Nos.867/2 and 867/2B at Adhiyamankottai Revenue Village, along with thatched sheds and 4 bore wells and electricity service connection and two tanks and one more electricity service connection and pump set and got a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) and subsequently, the loan agreement was renewed, wherein the respondent therein, namely, Nagaraj/A.1 agreed to pay a sum of Rs.7,36,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Thirty Six Thousand only) to Rajendran/A.2 and the said loan renewal agreement came into being on 03.12.2010. The said agreement also contains an arbitration clause and since Nagaraj/A.1 did not come forward to clear the dues, arbitral proceedings were initiated, wherein K.Rajaram - Advocate, had acted as an Arbitrator. The said agreement also contains an arbitration clause and since Nagaraj/A.1 did not come forward to clear the dues, arbitral proceedings were initiated, wherein K.Rajaram - Advocate, had acted as an Arbitrator. The respondent therein, namely, Nagaraj/A.1 remained exparte and final arbitral award came to be passed on 31.10.2014 and in order to execute the said award, the services of the petitioner herein/A.5 were utilised for filing R.E.P.No.36 of 2016 in AR.O.P.No.36 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dharmapuri and collusively, the respondent therein/judgment debtor remained exparte and abusing the process of Court, a registered sale deed was also executed on 02.05.2017 in favour of Rajendran/A.2. 4. It is the specific case of the intervenor/defacto complainant that admittedly, the petitioner/A.5 was the junior of P.V.Ravi/A.3 and he clearly knows that the said arbitral award is a fake one and made false statements and documents and managed to get filed R.E.P.No.36 of 2016 and got a collusive exparte order so as to enable Rajendran/A.2 to get registered the sale deed vide Document No.1075/2017 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Dharmapuri (West). According to the intervenor/defacto complainant, the said act of the petitioner/A.5 is not only illegal but, it also affects the judicial administration. 5. It is further pointed out by the learned Counsel for the intervenor/defacto complainant that challenging the grant of patta in respect of the predecessors-in-title, Nagaraj/A.1 filed an appeal before the District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri, wherein the petitioner/A.5 appeared along with his senior - P.V.Ravi/A.3, wherein an order was passed stating that in the light of the pendency of the civil proceedings in O.S.No.174 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri, both the parties should work out their remedy and despite the said fact, accepted the brief from Rajendran/A.2 for the purpose of execution of the fake arbitral award and it amounts to perjury and professional misconduct. The intervenor/defacto complainant also lodged a complaint on the file of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, based on which, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner/A.5 in D.C.C.No.73 of 2019. 6. Mr.N.Manokaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that admittedly, the petitioner/A.5 was junior of P.V.Ravi/A.3 and thereafter, started independent practice and in some of the cases, he appeared against his senior, P.V.Ravi/A.3 also. 6. Mr.N.Manokaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that admittedly, the petitioner/A.5 was junior of P.V.Ravi/A.3 and thereafter, started independent practice and in some of the cases, he appeared against his senior, P.V.Ravi/A.3 also. The petitioner/A.5 discharged his duties as a lawyer and he initially did not entertain the truth or veracity of the arbitral award and on the instructions of Rajendran/A.2, he filed an execution petition which was also entertained by the learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri in R.E.P.No.36 of 2016 and despite steps taken, the respondent, namely, Nagaraj/A.1 remained exparte and an exparte order came to be passed and thereafter, registered sale deed was executed in favour of Rajendran/A.2. 7. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner/A.5 that the petitioner/A.5 is having 16 years of bar experience and he never involved in unethical practice and whenever documents are given for filing the execution petition, normally, they would be deemed as they are genuine documents and that is why, R.E.P.No.36 of 2016 was entertained by the Court of competent jurisdiction. 8. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner/A.5 that after registration of the F.I.R., the Investigating Agency called for his appearance under Section 91 Cr.P.C., and accordingly, he appeared on 17.05.2018 and 08.04.2019 and fully co-operated with the investigation and as such, his custodial interrogation is not at all necessary and he has also filed his response in respect of the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry at the instance of the intervenor/defacto complainant. 9. In sum and substance, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner/A.5 that the allegations pertain to documents and that the petitioner/A.5 had also fully co-operated with the Investigating Agency and also prepared to do so in future and he never violated the professional ethics and in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, his custodial interrogation is not at all necessary and prays for bail in the event of arrest. 10. 10. Mr.C.Iyyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that the initial investigation revealed that all the accused connived with each other and created a fake arbitral award and there was some pressure on account of the fact that most of the accused are Advocates and the Investigating Agency could not make a headway and only after this Court seized of the matter and passed an order on 16.07.2019, directing the Additional Director General of Police, Law and Order, Mylapore, Chennai, to file status report in future, progress is being shown and strongly opposed this application for anticipatory bail. 11. The learned Counsel for the intervenor/defacto complainant has invited the attention of this Court to the voluminous documents filed in the form of typed set of papers and would submit that all the accused actively connived and colluded together and solely with the intention to deprive the defacto complainant of his valuable properties, managed to engage one K.Rajaram as Arbitrator, who also indulged in similar unethical practice and was suspended by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and by abusing the process of law, managed to get the said fake arbitral award. The petitioner/A.5, who was the junior of P.V.Ravi/A.3, knowing pretty well that it was a fake arbitration award, levied execution and as usual, the respondent therein/judgment debtor, namely, Nagaraj/A.1 remained exparte and managed to get executed the sale deed through the Court. 12. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel for the intervenor/defacto complainant that the petitioner/A.5 on an occasion stated that Rajendran/A.2 was introduced by his relative, namely, Raman and Rajendran/A.2 did not approach him directly and he knows very well that the patta said to have been granted in favour of Nagaraj is a fake one for the reason that he himself appeared along with his senior, namely, P.V.Ravi/A.3 in the appeal proceedings before the District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri and having aware of the consequences and cost of his criminality and unethical practice continued to help Rajendra/A.2 and as such, is not entitled to get any indulgence from this Court. 13. 13. It is further pointed out by the learned Counsel for the intervenor/defacto complainant that in this regard, a complaint was lodged before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and it also seized of the matter in D.C.C.No.73 of 2019 and if he remains outside, he would definitely tamper with the witnesses and hamper the investigation and therefore, his custodial interrogation is absolutely necessary to unearth more truth and prays for the dismissal of this petition. 14. This Court paid it’s best attention and anxious consideration to the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed on record. 15. P.V.Ravi/A.3, who was the senior of the petitioner/A.5 was arrested and was enlarged on bail vide order of this Court passed in Crl.O.P.No.19533 of 2019, dated 19.08.2019, subject to certain conditions. 16. The learned Counsel for the intervenor/defacto complainant made a vehement and forceful submission and in that process, has drawn the attention of this Court to the voluminous typed set of documents to substantiate his contention as to the allegations. It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court that civil proceedings pertaining to the properties in question are pending on the file of this Court in S.A.No.36 of 2016. 17. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, the investigation is in crucial stage and therefore, this Court cannot comment upon the truth or otherwise of the documents submitted by the intervenor/defacto complainant in the petition for intervention. 18. No doubt, the respondent/Investigating Agency started to show some interest only after this Court, vide order dated 16.07.2019, directed the Additional Director General of Police, Law and Order, Mylapore, Chennai, to file status report in future. 19. It is also to be noted at this juncture that the petitioner/A.5 after becoming aware of the allegations, has also withdrawn his appearance by filing a Memo dated 20.06.2018 and later on, R.E.P.No.36 of 2016 was also dismissed for default on 05.12.2018. The petitioner/A.5 pursuant to the notice issued under Section 91 Cr.P.C., by the Investigating Agency, appeared for enquiry on 17.05.2018 and 08.04.2019 respectively and co-operated with the investigation. 20. The petitioner/A.5 for the same set of allegations, is facing the disciplinary proceedings before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry in D.C.C.No.73 of 2019. The petitioner is having a Bar standing of nearly 17 years (Enrl. 20. The petitioner/A.5 for the same set of allegations, is facing the disciplinary proceedings before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry in D.C.C.No.73 of 2019. The petitioner is having a Bar standing of nearly 17 years (Enrl. No.1173/2002) and though he would admit that he was a junior of P.V.Ravi/A.3, would state that he started his independent practice from January 2006 and used to appear against his senior, namely, P.V.Ravi/A.3 also. 21. It is also settled position of law that this Court while dealing with the petition for bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to delve deep into the genuineness or truth or otherwise of the documents as it is for the Investigating Agency to take into consideration the same for investigation. 22. It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court that apart from the present case, the petitioner/A.5 did not involve himself in any criminal case. The former senior of the petitioner/A.5, namely, P.V.Ravi/A.3 - Advocate, was arrested in connection with Cr.No.1 of 2018 on the file of the respondent and was enlarged on bail vide order of this Court passed in Crl.O.P.No.19533 of 2019, dated 19.08.2019, subject to certain conditions. 23. This Court, in the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, is of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner/A.5 is not required for the present and therefore, the prayer for enlargement on bail in the event of arrest is to be positively considered. 24. 23. This Court, in the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, is of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner/A.5 is not required for the present and therefore, the prayer for enlargement on bail in the event of arrest is to be positively considered. 24. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered, granting bail to the petitioner herein/A.5 in the event of arrest, concerning in Cr.No.1 of 2018 on the file of the respondent subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner herein/A.5 shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dharmapuri; (ii) The petitioner herein/A.5, after his enlargement on bail, shall stay at Kancheepuram and report before the Inspector of Police, Siva Kanchi Police Station, Kancheepuram, daily at 11.00 a.m., until further orders, except on the dates where he is required to be present before the respondent/Investigating Agency for the purpose of investigation; (iii) The petitioner herein/A.5 shall not leave the limits of Kancheepuram pendency of the investigation without getting orders from this Court and shall not take advantage of his liberty and hamper with the investigation and tamper with the evidence and witnesses and shall not flee from the arms of justice; and (iv) In the event of the petitioner herein/A.5 violates any one of the aforesaid conditions, immediate and necessary steps have to be taken by the respondent/Investigating Agency to secure his custody in terms of the directions of the Honourable Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala reported in (2005) AIR SCW 5560.