JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., pleased to cancel the anticipatory bail granted in Crl.M.P.No.996 of 2023 dated 27.02.2023 passed by the Principal Sessions Court, Chengleput.) 1. This Petition has been filed by the defacto complainant in Cr.No.114 of 2023 seeking to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the second, third and fourth respondents by the learned Principal Sessions Court at Chengalpattu in Crl.M.P.No.996 of 2023 dated 27.02.203. 2. The petitioner is the defacto complainant. I realise the responsibility of being extremely careful in stating the facts of the case particularly since with respect to the property involved, there has been a long standing dispute relating to tile and also relating to possession between the petitioner on the one hand and the second, third and fourth respondents on the other hand. However, on a complaint given by the petitioner herein, FIR in Cr.No.114 of 2023 had been registered by the first respondent originally under Sections 147, 148, 447, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(i) of TN Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. 3. Seeking anticipatory bail, the second, third and fourth respondents had filed Crl.M.P.No.996 of 2023. The said petition came up for consideration before the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Chengalpattu and by an order dated 27.02.2023, the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Chengalpattu had granted anticipatory bail. The provision of law as stated by the second, third and fourth respondents herein / petitioners in that particular application / Crl.M.P.No.996 of 2023 were offences under Sections 147, 148, 447, 427, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC. The offence under Section 3(i) of TN Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 was not stated. Considering the offences which alone had been stated, anticipatory bail was granted. 4. The defacto complainant has now come before this Court seeking cancellation of that particular order by stating that the offence under Section 3(i) of TN Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 had not been mentioned in the petition seeking anticipatory bail before the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Chengalpattu and therefore, the order itself stands vitiated. 5. The defacto complainant has now come before this Court seeking cancellation of that particular order by stating that the offence under Section 3(i) of TN Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 had not been mentioned in the petition seeking anticipatory bail before the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Chengalpattu and therefore, the order itself stands vitiated. 5. It is an argument putforth by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein that if the learned Principal Sessions Judge had been appraised of the complete facts and that there is also an offence under Section 3(i) of TN Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, which is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner therein, then the learned Principal Sessions Judge, might have also rejected the said application seeking anticipatory bail. 6. I am concious that we enter into a zone of probabilities on how the discretion could have been exercised by the learned Principal Sessions Judge. But as a fact, the offence under Section 3(i) of TN Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 had not been mentioned in the petition seeking anticipatory bail. 7. This Court to determine the actual facts had called for a report from the learned Principal Sessions Judge relating to all papers in Cr.No.114 of 2023 and more particularly relating to Crl.M.P.No.996 of 2023. 8. Records have been forwarded and the learned Principal Sessions Judge had forwarded the copies of the following documents:- 1. Attested Xerox copy of FIR in Cr.No.114 of 2023 Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu. 2. Attested Xerox copy of complaint filed by one Mr. V.K. Parthasarathy in Cr.No.114 of 2023 Chengalpattu Police Station. 3. Attested Xerox Copy of application filed seeking anticipatory bail by the accused in Crl.M.P.No.996 of 2023 on the file of Principal Sessions Court, Chengalpattu. 4. Attested Xerox Copy of Order dated 27.02.2023 granting anticipatory bail Crl.M.P.No.996 of 2023 on the file of Principal Sessions Court, Chengalpattu. 5. Attested Xerox Copy of application filed seeking anticipatory bail by the accused in Crl.M.P.No.996 of 2023 on the file of Principal Sessions Court, Chengalpattu. 6. Attested Xerox copy of Section alteration report filed in Cr.No.114 of 2023 by the Inspector of Police, Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station before the Principal Sessions Court, Chengalpattu in the Anticipatory bail application in Crl.M.P.No.996 of 2023. 9. 6. Attested Xerox copy of Section alteration report filed in Cr.No.114 of 2023 by the Inspector of Police, Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station before the Principal Sessions Court, Chengalpattu in the Anticipatory bail application in Crl.M.P.No.996 of 2023. 9. Thereafter, the learned Principal Sessions Judge had stated as follows:- “I further humbly submit that on perusal of records relating to the Cr.No.114 of 2023 of Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Chengalpattu, it is found that no application seeking alteration of the FIR by dropping Section 3(1) of PPDL Act has been filed by the Inspector of Police, Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu. I humbly submit that however, the learned Public Prosecutor of this Court has submitted the copy of reply along with the section alteration report dropping Section 3(1) of PPDL Act in the above crime number before this Court for reference in the anticipatory bail application vide in Crl.M.P.No.996 of 2023 on the file of this Court”. 10. It is seen from the above report that no application had been filed seeking alteration of the FIR by establishing Section 3(i) of TN Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 by the Inspector of Police, Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station, before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu. There was one earlier alteration report which had been filed which was with respect to Section 506 IPC and altering between (i) and (ii) of the said provision. But however, it is stated that the Public Prosecutor had submitted a copy of the reply along with an alteration report but an application as such has not been filed before the Magistrate Court which is the Court where the FIR had lodged and which is the Court to record any alteration of any provision of law. That being the case seeking anticipatory bail by omitting Section 3(i) of TN Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 is an act which can be termed as obtaining an order without disclosing all material facts and as a matter of fact by suppressing a material fact. Once an order had been obtained by suppression of a material fact, the order naturally has to be set aside and interfered with and declared as non est in the eye of law. 11. Once an order had been obtained by suppression of a material fact, the order naturally has to be set aside and interfered with and declared as non est in the eye of law. 11. Accordingly, the order granting anticipatory bail in Crl.M.P.No.996 of 2023 dated 27.02.2023 is set aside and the anticipatory bail granted is cancelled. But however, it is also to be noted that the second, third and fourth respondents had the benefit of a protection, whether lawful or unlawful, still protection from arrest, owing to that particular order granting anticipatory bail. Therefore, an opportunity is granted to the second, third and fourth respondents to file a fresh anticipatory bail application in manner known to law incorporating the offence under Section 3(i) of TN Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 and thereafter, let proper procedure be followed to examine whether that provision still survives or has been dropped in manner known to law and thereafter, let a considered order be passed by the Court where the anticipatory bail application is filed. Since the anticipatory bail had been granted earlier, protection from any coercive action till 19.04.2024 is granted, by which date, the second, third and fourth respondents must file necessary application. 12. It is made very clear that if such application is filed, the learned Principal Session Judge must issue notice to the defacto complainant and must give opportunity to the counsel for the defacto complainant to also advance arguments and pass orders after hearing both sides.