Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 3083 (MAD)

T. Ravibabu v. D. Bhasker Shetty

2022-09-02

N.ANAND VENKATESH

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to cancel the Order of Anticipatory Bail granted in Crl.O.P.No.30472 of 2018 dated 08.03.2019 to the above Respondents-1 and 2/Accused-2 and 3 in C.C.B. Cr.No.29/2018 on the file of the Central Crime Branch, Chennai) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking for the cancellation of Anticipatory Bail granted to the first and second respondents on the ground that they have violated the undertaking given by them in the Memorandum of Understanding dated 01.03.2019. 2. Heard Mr.S.Anbalagan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.N.Murali Moghan, learned counsel for the first and second respondents and Mr.L.Baskaran, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the third respondent. 3. The petitioner gave a complaint before the third respondent against the first and second respondents and an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.29 of 2018 for offences under Sections 420 and 506(i) read with Section 34 of IPC. Apprehending arrest, the first and second respondents filed anticipatory bail petition before this Court. 4. During the pendency of anticipatory bail petition, the first and second respondents entered into the Memorandum of Understanding with the petitioner and agreed to repay the entire amount within a span of 20 months. Recording the same, anticipatory bail was granted to the first and second respondents through an order dated 08.03.2019. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the first and the second respondents paid only a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) out of the total amount of Rs.4.50 Crores. Even though the petitioner repeatedly requested the first and the second respondents to comply with the undertaking given in the Memorandum of Understanding, the first and the second respondents failed to comply with the same and hence this petition has been filed seeking for cancellation of anticipatory bail. 6. When this petition came up for hearing on 27.04.2021, this Court directed the first and the second respondents to comply with the undertaking, failing which the bail granted by this Court will stand automatically cancelled. Aggrieved by this order, the first and second respondents filed a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court and this petition came to be dismissed by an order dated 02.08.2022. 7. Aggrieved by this order, the first and second respondents filed a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court and this petition came to be dismissed by an order dated 02.08.2022. 7. The first and the second respondents have filed an affidavit and they have taken a stand that the non payment of the amount was only due to recession in the business and due to Covid pandemic. That apart, they have taken a stand that they gave a cheque as security for a sum of Rs.4.75 Crores and this cheque was presented by the petitioner and it was dishonored and the petitioner have already taken steps under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, according to the first and second respondents, the petitioner has to work out his remedy only before the criminal Court and he cannot file a petition for cancellation of bail only on the ground that the conditions contained in the Memorandum of Understanding has not been complied with. This according to the learned counsel for the first and second respondents amounts to execution of the terms of Memorandum of Understanding. 8. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit and has taken a stand that the investigation is pending only due to the non-cooperation of the accused persons and that the first and the second respondents have violated the undertaking given by them in the Memorandum of understanding. 9. In the considered view of this Court, the anticipatory bail was granted in favour of the first and second respondents only based on the undertaking given by them in the Memorandum of Understanding. This Court did not deal with the anticipatory bail petition on merits. As a consequence, once the terms of Memorandum of Understanding is violated, this Court has to necessarily cancel the anticipatory bail granted in favour of the first and second respondents. A similar view was taken by this Court while cancelling the bail granted in favour of A1 and A4 in CRL OP Nos.17080 and 17082 of 2020. This view will equally apply to the first and the second respondents also. 10. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the Anticipatory Bail granted in favour of the first and second respondents/A2 and A3 stands cancelled.