JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original petition has been filed under Sections 439(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to cancel the bail order dated 04.07.2022 made in Crl.M.P.No.16896 of 2022 passed by the learned CCB & CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai for the failure of the learned trial Court in according a hearing to the victim-defacto complainant and absence of application of judicial mind adverting to the guidelines of athe Hon''ble Supreme Court.) 1. This Criminal Original petition has been filed seeking to cancel the bail order dated 04.07.2022 made in Crl.M.P.No.16896 of 2022 passed by the learned CCB & CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and her husband purchased the property from the petitioner through his power agent one Subramanian who is none other than the 1 st accused for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,50,00,000/- through a duly registered sale deed Document No.356/2013 dated 23.01.2013 and she gave additional of Rs.3,00,000/- for mutating the revenue records in her name. Thereafter the defacto complainant and her husband went to Dubai hence they appointed one Subramaniyan (A1) to maintain the property. On 28.05.2019 the defacto complainant went to visit the above said property there was some construction works and when the same was questioned by her, the workers gave reply that the work had been doing on the instruction of the land owner and hence she checked the EC for the property and property was transferred to Nageshwari and Arunkumar on the basis of the Judgment in O.S.No.185 of 2015. In that case, the de-facto complainant was also arrayed as one of the defendant and the accused No.1 gave vakalath to an advocate for himself and also for the defacto complainant and voluntarily not contested the suit and the same was ordered in favour of the plaintiffs. The defacto complainant questioned the same to the accused No.1 for that he threatened the defacto complainant and her husband and hence the crime was registered. Therefore, the second respondent along with other accused persons had cheated the defacto complainant. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an extent of 2.82 acres in S.No.216/1 of Village Valasaravakkam belonged to one Mrs.Thayammal. Therefore, the second respondent along with other accused persons had cheated the defacto complainant. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an extent of 2.82 acres in S.No.216/1 of Village Valasaravakkam belonged to one Mrs.Thayammal. Since Mrs.Thayammal did not have any child, she executed a settlement deed vide document No.2005/1945 in which the said property was conveyed to her 3rd brother Shanmugham Chetty at item No. 6 of the deed. He further submitted that Mrs. Santhakumari is the daughter of Shanmugam Chetty. It is pertinent to mention here that the Poonamallee District Munsif Court had decreed in O.S.No.797 of 1974 dated 17.11.1980 that the said property belonged to R.Parvathy and D.Thayammal and not Mrs.Santhakumari and thus she lost her title to the part of the said property. 4. He further submitted that the said Mrs.Santhakumari entered into a sale agreement with Mr AD.Govindaraj Naicker and failed to execute the sale deed for the remaining portion of the land in the subject land in S.No.216/1. Chengalpattu Sub Court, passed its Judgment in OS.No.63 of 1984 wherein specific performance of execution of sale deed for the said property in favour of the petitioner/AD Govindaraja Naicker. On the strength of this decree Mrs.Santhakumari executed sale deeds to persons nominated by AD Govindaraj vide registered sale deed No.968 to 972,976, 978, 981, 983, 984 and 989 of 1986 in favour of Mr.R.Kanniyappan, Mr KS Ekambaram and various others. Thus title for the entire property in the Survey No.216/1 was thus lost by Accused No.3. 5. The property in Plot No.22 was purchased by KS Ekambaram vide document No.975/1986 and subsequently sold to Mr.Rangaraj vide document No.1308 /1986 and the same was settled in favour of his wife Nageshwari and son Arun kumar (1200 sq feed each) vide document No.5251 of 2010. Further, on 23.02.2012, suppressing loss of title in the subject property, Mrs. Santhakumari (A3) executed General Power of Attorney document No.1894 of 2011 in SRO Virugambakkam for an extent of 2400 sq ft M in Plot No.22 in S.No.216/1 in favour of accused No.1, Mr.A.Subramaniyan. It is a very well planned conspiratorial arrangement wherein the GPA was executed surreptitiously only for selected few plots for which the buyers were not living in the near vicinity. Thereafter the said Subramaniyan (A1) executed a sale deed vide document No.1065 of 2012 of SRO Virugambakkam in favour of A2/second respondent. It is a very well planned conspiratorial arrangement wherein the GPA was executed surreptitiously only for selected few plots for which the buyers were not living in the near vicinity. Thereafter the said Subramaniyan (A1) executed a sale deed vide document No.1065 of 2012 of SRO Virugambakkam in favour of A2/second respondent. Again, the second respondent has appointed A1 as power agent, in turn, A1 had executed the sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that the sale consideration was mentioned as Rs.10,00,000/- only for a property worth Rs.1,50,00,000/-. 6. Further, the second respondent executed a GPA document No.1527 of 2012 of SRO Virugambakkam for the said property in favour of A1 again. Meanwhile the second respondent/A2 entered into an unregistered sale agreement with petitioner /Mrs.T.Gandhimathi on 24.11.2012 with A1 and P.Thenappan as witnessess. An amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- was paid as consideration by 26.12.2012. On 23.01.2013, A1 executed sale deed document No.356 of 2013 of SRO Virugambakkam in favour of the petitioner, after receiving cheque bearing machine No.00103 dated 23.01.2013 for a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- and another Rs.10,00,000/- in cash. However, the second respondent insisted that the sale deed be registered for Rs.40,00,000/- as sale consideration only and coerced to agree to the same. However, both accused 1 and 2 have endorsed receipt of Rs.1,50,00.000/- by signing on various dates. 7. Thereafter, the defacto complainant went to USA to live with her son and on her return realized that on 20.04.2016 Sub Court, Poonamallee passed Judgment (exparte) in O.S.No.185 of 2015 in favour of Mrs. R.Nageswari and R.Arunkumar, Mr.K.Subramanian, Advocate of Accused No 1 & 2 had entered appearance for the defacto complainant (Respondent 4) without consent and vakalat and let the case be decreed exparte. 8. It is submitted that A1 attempted to sell Plot No 4 they were caught for land grabbing and crime No.234 of 2014 was registered against them and wife of A. Subramanian too. While on bail, CCB, Chennai filed another FIR in Crime No.21 of 2015 against them, witness in the present crime Nos. 16/2022, under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 448, 120(b) of IPC for another Plot of Dr.Narahari in the same lay out. This time A1 while seeking bail gave an undertaking stating that they would not interfere with the subject property henceforth. 9. 16/2022, under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 448, 120(b) of IPC for another Plot of Dr.Narahari in the same lay out. This time A1 while seeking bail gave an undertaking stating that they would not interfere with the subject property henceforth. 9. It has later been learnt that the District Registrar South Chenni has held the General Power of Attorney of Document No.1894 of 2011 executed by A3/Mrs.Santhakumari in favour of A1 herein as fraudulent and directed all the consequential documents to be cancelled in his proceedings dated 16.11.2016. It is evident from the proceedings of DR Chennai South stated supra that the accused fraudsters can not even claim to seek legal intervention in the guise of civil dispute as they have not even appealed against the said proceedings and the same has attained finality. It is submitted that the petitioner/defacto complainant asked the accused persons on several occasions to return the money but they refused to repay the same. On 16.08.2021 the petitioner filed a complaint with the Central Crime Branch, Chennai. 10. It is further submitted that the defacto complainant was intentionally cheated by the accused persons who misappropriated a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- It is submitted that the petitioner have been perpetually cheating elderly citizens for which there are more than two FIRs registered against them already. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the second respondent filed bail application in Crl.M.P.No.15024 of 2022 before the trial Court and the same was dismissed on 22.06.2022. However, second bail application filed in Crl.M.P.No.16896 of 2022 and the same was allowed on 28.06.2022, there is no change of circumstances, the trial Court allowed the application without judicial mind and adverting to the guidelines of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in various cases for grant of bail. Therefore, he prays to allow the petition. 12. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the second respondent is a bonafide purchaser of the said property from the vendor who is arrayed as A3 and he sold the said property to the defacto complainant through his power agent for a valuable consideration. He further submitted that the second respondent is a bonafide purchaser of the said property from the vendor who is arrayed as A3 and he sold the said property to the defacto complainant through his power agent for a valuable consideration. He further submitted that the said property was belonged to one Thayammal wife of Ramadoss Chetty had executed a deed of settlement dated 21.11.1945 in Doc No.2005 of 1945 SRO Saidapet, in respect of S.No.216/1 and other lands in favour of her brothers namely Balasundram Chetty, Natesan Chetty and Shanmugam Chetty sons of Porur Rangaswamy Chetty absolutely and equally. The said Shanmugam Chetty died on 05.09.1956 and the legal heirship certificate was issued by Mambalam Guindy taluk dated 06.06.2005 disclosed S.Santhakumari wife of Kuppuswamy as only daughter of Shanmugam Chetty who is 3rd accused. The land acquisition proceedings is addressed to the said S.Santhakumari, and land acquisition original petition 614 of 87 Sub Court Poonamallee, referred under Section 30 and 31 of the Act showed the name of S.Santhakumari, The above reference was closed for dismissal for default. The chitta and Adangal for facile 1413 and Patta No.107 for S.No.216/1A1A stands in the name of S. Santhakumari. 13. He further submitted that the suit register extract O.S.No.797 of 74 Munsif Court, Poonamallee reveal that one Parvathi has filed suit against A3/S.Santhakumari daughter of Shanmugam Chetty and 16 others. The above suit ended in compromise. Further, One A.D, Govindaraja Naicker filed a suit for specific performance of contract in O.S.No.63 of 1984, Sub Court, Poonamallee against A3/S.Santhakumari on the basis of an agreement of sale dated 04.04.1974. The suit was decreed on 04.10.1985. He has also deposited the balance sale consideration towards the credit of the suit. The A3/S.Santhakumari did not filed any appeal. Subsequently it seems that a compromise was entered into between A3 and A.D.Govindaraja Naicker, The suit extract for O.S.No.63 of 1984 Sub Court, Poonamallee. 14. The second respondent/A2 purchased the said property from A3 for a valuable consideration by checking the EC and other documents and she had a clear title over the property. In those circumstances, in the present proceedings no grounds have been made out for cancellation of bail since the second respondent has been complying with the conditions and not tampered any of the witness or evidence to entertain the present application. 15. In those circumstances, in the present proceedings no grounds have been made out for cancellation of bail since the second respondent has been complying with the conditions and not tampered any of the witness or evidence to entertain the present application. 15. On considering submissions, the trial Court had granted the bail and the para 6 of the order is extracted hereunder Defacto complainant preferred the complaint before the Anna Nagar Police Station, Madras on 17.09.2021 which was closed after due enquiry. Whether Santhakumari is the owner of the property? and whether fraudulent documents have been prepared ? Will be decided only during the trial of this case and the petitioner from where be sought is in custody for the past 28 days. Period taking custodial interrogation is over. Considering the nature of the case and the submission made by the counsel of the petitioner/accused and also considering the duration of custody, this Court is inclined to enlarge the accused on bail. 16. Therefore, no reason assigned for granting bail. Further, the petitioner was appeared before the trial Court and raised his objection but the trial Judge has not considered his objection and granted bail to the accused person is totally unjust when fraudulent registration of document involved more than Rs.1,50,00,000/-Crore without title. Moreover the General Power of Attorney also cancelled by District Registrar also not been considered by the trial Judge. 17. On perusal of the order passed by the trial Court, the trial Court without assigning any reason, while bail granted to the second respondent. Further, the petitioner/defacto complainant who is aged about 72 years for the past 10 years, he suffering from illness and he unnecessarily dragged from pillar to post. It is a case of land grabbing. But the trial Court ought to have gone through all the materials and with judicious mind. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is cancelled and the trial Court shall consider the bail application afresh. 18. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Registry is directed to call for the explanation from Tmt.P.Revathi , CCB & CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai as to on what basis she granted bail to A2/N.Muthu in Crime No.16 of 2022 and what is the change of circumstances after dismissal of the previous bail order dated 22.06.2022.