Madrasreserved High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025Inbarasu, thereafter Inbarasu executed sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 06.08.2019. In turn, the petitioner executed a sale deed to one Adhimoolam and Yosadha Adhimoolam. Hence, a complaint lodged to the District Crime Branch-II, Chengalpet on 23.11.2019 and FIR in Crime No.3 of 2024 registered. Since no action taken, the defacto complainant filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C in Crl.O.P.No.26821 of 2024 seeking transfer of investigation in Crime No.3 of 2024 and this Court by order dated 27.11.2024 transferred the investigation to the respondent Police and case renumbered as FIR in Crime No.1 of 2025.3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is the fourth anticipatory bail before this Court. Earlier, the petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No.31152 of 2024 before this Court and the same was withdrawn on 13.03.2025, thereafter filed Crl.O.P.No.11306 of 2024 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 05.06.2024 and again filed Crl.O.P.No.11183 of 2025 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.04.2025 citing one of the document necessary to support the petitioner found missing. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary Page No.3 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025No.26178 of 2025 and the same was dismissed on 15.05.2025.4.He further submitted that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser who purchased the property in the year 2019, thereafter, patta and other revenue records transferred to the name of the petitioner. Subsequently, petitioner sold the property to third parties. Now, the allegation is that the petitioner claims and sold the property by creating forged power of attorney, arranging impersonators in the name of defacto complainant. In the complaint there is no specific allegation even remotely tracing the involvement of the petitioner. He further submitted that defacto complainant already filed a civil suit in O.S.No.105 of 2021 before the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpet in which the petitioner entered appearance, filed his counter. The petitioner doubted the veracity of defacto complainant projecting herself as wife of Nithyanand who is settled in USA. Further, the said civil suit is filed through Power of Attorney Saravanan and the Power of Attorney executed in USA adjudicated here. The veracity of the power of attorney and adjudication are doubtful. According to the petitioner, defacto complainant is not a legally wedded wife of Nithyanand and the settlement Page No.4 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025by Nithyanand to defacto complainant itself is doubtful. Further, defacto complainant executed a power of attorney favouring Inbarasu in GPA.No.10504/2019, based on which, the petitioner acquired the property and the entire payments of the petitioner made through bank and recorded in sale deed. Hence, it is a genuine sale and not a sham. 5.The learned counsel further submitted that the defacto complainant having already filed a civil suit now attempts to give criminal colour to the civil dispute. Initially, Police hesitated to register a case on the complaint of defacto complainant since the complaint predominantly having civil flavour. The defacto complainant approached the Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet and filed a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. When it was pending, the defacto complainant filed a direction petition before this Court to register FIR. During the pendency of direction petition, the Police was pressurized having left with no other option and to give an explanation to this Court, the Police registered FIR. The petitioner without prejudice to his contention on merits is ready and willing to cancel the sale deed Document NO.10539 of 2019 dated 06.08.2019 registered before SRO, Thiruporur and sought bail.Page No.5 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 20256.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for Intervenor/defacto instrumental complainant submitted that petitioner is the fulcrum and man behind the entire issue, and he is instrumental in arranging and projecting the other accused, who had all played an active role, connived in creating forged documents, forgery and impersonation and thereby executing forged sale deeds. Using the forged sale deeds, he had executed a mortgage deed and thereafter, through power of attorney sold the property to the other accused, thereby encumbering and encroaching upon the defacto complainant's property. He further submitted that one Nithyanandham, son of Palanivel of Anna Nagar, Chennai is projected as though he is Nithyanand, husband of defacto complainant and owner of the property. The defacto complainant's husband Nithyanand is residing in USA, prior to it, he was residing at Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai and never resided at Anna Nagar, Chennai. Through this impersonated person, a power of attorney executed in favour of V.Srinivasan who is residing at Mambakkam. Both persons arranged an impersonator executed sale deed in favour of the petitioner through the power of attorney Inbarasu and the said Inbarasu executed sale deed on 06.08.2019, thereafter, on the same day, the petitioner Page No.6 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025executed a registered power of attorney in favour of one Mathupriya, who immediately executed a simple mortgaged deed with M/s.Bhavika M.Jain on 06.08.2019. Later, the mortgage discharged on 17.11.2019, thereafter, the power of attorney favouring Mathupriya cancelled on 17.12.2019 and the petitioner appointed M/s.Trusticon Builders and Developers Private Limited as power agent. The said M/s.Trusticon Builders and Developers Private Limited mortgaged the property on 05.10.2010 with M.Naresh Kumar Kothari. Thereafter, mortgage discharged and Gokuk Yadav, Director of M/s.Trusticon Builders and Developers Private Limited now executed sale deed in favour of Aadhimoolam and Yasodha Adhimoolam by Document No.9967 of 2022 on 13.05.2022. Thus, the petitioner cleverly manipulated, created forged documents and successfully encroached on the property, also creating encumbrance, putting the defacto complainant in entanglement and denying the rightful enjoyment of the property, which is a fundamental right.7.He further submitted that the DCB-II was reluctant to initially register the FIR, thereafter the defacto complainant had to move the Court Page No.7 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025for addressing the grievance. This Court in Crl.O.P.No.26821 of 2024 by order dated 27.11.2024 finding that the DCB-II is in slumber and dismissal of anticipatory bail application of the petitioner, directed the respondent namely CBCID Kancheepuram to take up investigation who re-registered the case as Crime No.1 of 2025. In this case, Palani Natesan, Sub Registrar, a co-accused and a rally to the petitioner arrested on 05.06.2025 who admitted and confessed having received Rs.2,50,000/- from the petitioner for entertaining and accepting the sale deed which was shrouded with mystery. Further, in the anticipatory bail petition in Crl.O.P.No.11306 of 2024, status report received by this Court in which it is clearly recorded that the petitioner created bogus general power of attorney in document No.10504 of 2019 in favour of his accomplice Inbarasu and created sale deed using fabricated documents. Further, in the order of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.10504 of 2019 while dismissing anticipatory bail, this Court held that the petitioner is an habitual offender and several FIRs registered against him of similar nature and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required. In the same order, it had also in detail referred to bogus money transaction which the petitioner had created to project as though sale Page No.8 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025consideration have been transferred to one Thilagavathy, the impersonator through bank transaction and through cheque of Rs.60 lakhs on 01.08.2019, Rs.65 lakhs on 06.08.2019, Rs.50 lakhs on 07.08.2019, Rs.50 lakhs on 09.08.2019, Rs.50 lakhs on 14.08.2019 and Rs.50 lakhs on 31.08.2019 and another Rs.54,81,840/- and Rs.4,34,150/- as TDS. All through City Union Bank Cheques which is recorded in Document No.10539 of 2019. This has been found to be false. The petitioner opened two bank accounts in the name of Vinayakk Tradings in City Union Bank A/c.No.500101012198975 and A/c.No.260109000188390 giving the same address at No.18 AIBEA Anna Nagar, Mogaippar West, Chennai- 600037 which confirmed that the money transferred is a sham, created book entry and nothing more. The other accused M.Murugesan, C.Sekar, V.Srinivasan and Inbarasu all arrested earlier granted statutory bail and the petitioner's custodial interrogation is very much required. Further, the petitioner is involved in the following cases:Page No.9 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025S.No.Case DetailsOffences1CC.15794 of 2022 on the file of CCB & CBCID MM Court, Egmore in Crime No.103 of 2019 (CC QUASH in Crl.OP.32689 of 2024 is pending)U/s.406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC2Crime No.125 of 2022 on the file of CCB, Land Grabbing Cell, Vepery, Chennai (FIR QUASH in Crl.O.P.32691 of 2024 is pending)U/s.420, 465, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC8.The defacto complainant produced two bank statements of Vinayakk Tradings and also the City Union Bank A/c.No.500101012198975, in which, it is seen that in the name of Thilagavathy, an account open form shown the same address of Mogapair West and the permanent address at Gugai, Salem, further the Impersonator photo is there. While opening account, the petitioner gave a letter to the Manager, City Union Bank, Ambattur Branch, Chennai certifying that Thilagavathy is working with Vinayakk Tradings since 2017. Scanned reproduction of account opening form, bank transaction, letter given by the petitioner to City Union Bank Manager and money trail are as follows:Page No.10 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025Page No.11 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025Page No.12 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025Page No.13 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025Page No.14 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025Page No.15 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025Page No.16 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025Page No.17 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 20259.He further submitted that this Court dismissed the anticipatory bail of the petitioner thrice and further, the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed SLP and there is no change in circumstances. On the other hand, further material collected by the respondent Police confirmed the petitioner's active role and the man behind the entire episode. In view of the above, this petition to be dismissed in limini.10.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police submitted that initially, DCB-II registered a case in Crime No.3 of 2024 against Nithyanandham and others, thereafter, the case transferred to the file of the respondent Police who renumbered the case as Crime No.1 of 2025. In this case, so far M.Murugesan, C.Sekar, V.Srinivasan and Inbarasu arrested earlier granted statutory bail and now Palani Natesan, Sub Registrar arrested on 05.06.2025. Except the petitioner, all other accused arrested. He further submitted that the petitioner is filing petitions one after another before this Court Court, Sessions Court and Apex Court despite all Court dismissed the petitions. Now, a Special Team formed and the petitioner soon to be apprehended. He Page No.18 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025further submitted that the petitioner now coming forward to cancel the forged documents would serve no purpose since the petitioner had encroached upon the property taking advantage that the defacto complainant and her husband are the resident of USA, further created further documents and encumbrance to the property and now the property value multiplied to several crores. The petitioner wants to tire the defacto complainant by force and encumbrance by sustaining encroachments. The written statement filed in the civil suit will prove the real intention of the petitioner. The petitioner questioning the defacto complainant’s status as wife of Nithyanand. In this case, one Nithyanandham of Anna Nagar projected as owner of the property by impersonation and forged documents claim his sale deed as genuine. Further, the amount recorded in the sale deed transferred through City Union Bank, proved to be false. Both accounts belong to the defacto complainant and not to Thilagavthy, as projected. The said Thilagavathy is none other than employee of Vinayakk Tradings with same address and the petitioner proprietor of Vinayakk Tradings.Page No.19 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 202511.He further submitted that the petitioner is the centre point around whom the entire case revolves. All the accused confirmed the petitioner’s role and they were paid a small pittance by the petitioner, for which they actively connived and participated. Further, the petitioner’s antecedents would prove that he is a land grabber, encroaching the lands creating encumbrance and litigation and there are several cases of similar nature pending against him. In this case, investigation is hitting a roadblock due to the abscondence of the petitioner, now a special team is formed to apprehend the petitioner. Hence, he prayed for dismissal.12.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.13.Earlier, the petitioner filed three anticipatory bail applications before this Court and one before the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpet and one before the Hon’ble Apex Court, all dismissed. This is the sixth anticipatory bail petition.Page No.20 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 202514.The petitioner claims that he purchased the property from one Inbarasu, Power of Attorney of Thilagavathy wife of Nithyanandham by Document No.10539 of 2019 on 06.08.2019. The said Inbarasu was appointed as Power of Attorney of Thilagavathy wife of Nithyanandham on 05.08.2019. On 06.08.2019, the petitioner purchased the property in which it is recorded the sale proceeds transferred through the bank including TDS on eight occasions. Cheques drawn through City Union Bank, Ambattur Branch in the name of Vinayakk Tradings and the petitioner is the Proprietor. Amounts transferred from A/c.No.260109000188390 to N.Thilagavathy A/c.No.500101012198975, are as follows:1.The amount of Rs.60 lakhs was transferred through cheque No.1969 on 01.08.2019.2.The amount of Rs.60 lakhs was transferred through cheque No.1979 on 06.08.2019.3.The amount of Rs.50 lakhs was transferred through cheque No.1977 on 07.08.2019.4.The amount of Rs.50 lakhs was transferred through cheque No.1978 on 09.08.2019.Page No.21 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 20255.The amount of Rs.50 lakhs was transferred through cheque No.1979 on 14.08.2019.6.The amount of Rs.50 lakhs was transferred through cheque No.1980 on 31.08.2019.7.The amount of Rs.50 lakhs was transferred through cheque No.1981 on 31.08.2019.8.The amount of Rs.54,81,840/- was transferred through cheque No.1982 on 30.09.2019.The above said eight transactions said to have paid by the petitioner to the Executant of the sale deed. The statement of account produced by the petitioner confirm that the sale deed had been executed on 06.08.2019 but the cheques transacted must later as per Bank statement of Accounts and confirmed the amount reflected in the sale deed not paid on the date of sale deed. Added to it, it is seen cheques all belong to Vinayakk Tradings to which the petitioner is the Proprietor and said impersonator N.Thilagavathy is an employee. This would show the sham transaction enacted by creating forged documents.Page No.22 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 202515.Added to it, the petitioner in the written statement filed in O.S.No.105 of 2023 questioned the defacto complainant’s husband executing settlement deed in favour of defacto complainant on 19.10.2015 in Document No.13217 of 2015 and thereafter the power of attorney by the defacto complainant in favour of Saravanan in document No.313 if 2019, he further question the status of defacto complainant as wife of Nithyanand and he executing settlement deed to the defacto complainant.16.It is to be seen that the defacto complainant earlier filed a writ petition in W.P.No.23310 of 2019 for the Sub Registrar holding the original settlement deed dated 19.10.2015. During the pendency of writ petition, the Sub Registrar was made known about the discrepancy and creation of encumbrance in the property of defacto complainant, hence, the Sub Registrar ought to have been vigilant and diligent, but not done so, on the other hand, facilitated and registering forged documents and creating encumbrance, registered mortgage deed, release of mortgage, executing further sale deed in favour of one Adhimoolam and Yasodha Adhimoolam by Gokul Yadev, Director of M/s.Trusticon Builders and Developers Private Page No.23 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025Limited through document No.1967 of 2011, dated 13.05.2022.17.It is seen now the petitioner in his letter dated 21.06.2023 to the Sub Registrar made a complaint against Gokul Yadav, Director of M/s.Trusticon Builders and Developers Private Limited making allegation he has not submitted proper accounts to the petitioner, hence, no documents to be registered in survey Nos.231/1A, 231/2A, 231/3A, 231/4A, 231/5A, 231/1 total extent of 1.08 acres in Kazhipattur Village, Thiruporur Taluk. The plaint copy, written statement, bank statement, copy of cheques all are documents produced by the petitioner. These documents on perusal and as per the above narration would confirm clear forgery, impersonation, creation of forged documents, producing false bank statements for payment of money. Further, in this case the investigation has to be conducted with regard to M/s.Trusticon Builders and Developers Private Limited Director Gokul Yadav and the purchaser of the property namely Yasodha Adhimoolam and Adhimoolam. Further, it is strange to see that in the subsequent sale deed document No.1967 of 2022, payment particulars is without any details. Though it is claimed that Rs.9,49,50,000/- paid by way Page No.24 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025of RTGS and another Rs.50,000/- for TDS, no details and particulars provided, then how such documents can be entertained and admitted, which needs further probe. No claim to a property by fraud can be termed as civil dispute.18.In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.19.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Crl.M.P.No.14814 of 2025 in Crl.O.P.No.17854 of 2025 is ordered.20.08.2025Speaking Order/Non Speaking OrderIndex : Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/Novv2Page No.25 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025To1.The Inspector of Police, CBCID – North, Kancheepuram.2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.Page No.26 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.vv2PRE-DELIVERY ORDER INCrl.O.P.No.17852 of 202520.08.2025Page No.27 of 27

Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025Inbarasu, thereafter Inbarasu executed sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 06.08.2019. In turn, the petitioner executed a sale deed to one Adhimoolam and Yosadha Adhimoolam. Hence, a complaint lodged to the District Crime Branch-II, Chengalpet on 23.11.2019 and FIR in Crime No.3 of 2024 registered. Since no action taken, the defacto complainant filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C in Crl.O.P.No.26821 of 2024 seeking transfer of investigation in Crime No.3 of 2024 and this Court by order dated 27.11.2024 transferred the investigation to the respondent Police and case renumbered as FIR in Crime No.1 of 2025.3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is the fourth anticipatory bail before this Court. Earlier, the petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No.31152 of 2024 before this Court and the same was withdrawn on 13.03.2025, thereafter filed Crl.O.P.No.11306 of 2024 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 05.06.2024 and again filed Crl.O.P.No.11183 of 2025 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.04.2025 citing one of the document necessary to support the petitioner found missing. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary Page No.3 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025No.26178 of 2025 and the same was dismissed on 15.05.2025.4.He further submitted that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser who purchased the property in the year 2019, thereafter, patta and other revenue records transferred to the name of the petitioner. Subsequently, petitioner sold the property to third parties. Now, the allegation is that the petitioner claims and sold the property by creating forged power of attorney, arranging impersonators in the name of defacto complainant. In the complaint there is no specific allegation even remotely tracing the involvement of the petitioner. He further submitted that defacto complainant already filed a civil suit in O.S.No.105 of 2021 before the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpet in which the petitioner entered appearance, filed his counter. The petitioner doubted the veracity of defacto complainant projecting herself as wife of Nithyanand who is settled in USA. Further, the said civil suit is filed through Power of Attorney Saravanan and the Power of Attorney executed in USA adjudicated here. The veracity of the power of attorney and adjudication are doubtful. According to the petitioner, defacto complainant is not a legally wedded wife of Nithyanand and the settlement Page No.4 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025by Nithyanand to defacto complainant itself is doubtful. Further, defacto complainant executed a power of attorney favouring Inbarasu in GPA.No.10504/2019, based on which, the petitioner acquired the property and the entire payments of the petitioner made through bank and recorded in sale deed. Hence, it is a genuine sale and not a sham. 5.The learned counsel further submitted that the defacto complainant having already filed a civil suit now attempts to give criminal colour to the civil dispute. Initially, Police hesitated to register a case on the complaint of defacto complainant since the complaint predominantly having civil flavour. The defacto complainant approached the Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet and filed a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. When it was pending, the defacto complainant filed a direction petition before this Court to register FIR. During the pendency of direction petition, the Police was pressurized having left with no other option and to give an explanation to this Court, the Police registered FIR. The petitioner without prejudice to his contention on merits is ready and willing to cancel the sale deed Document NO.10539 of 2019 dated 06.08.2019 registered before SRO, Thiruporur and sought bail.Page No.5 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 20256.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for Intervenor/defacto instrumental complainant submitted that petitioner is the fulcrum and man behind the entire issue, and he is instrumental in arranging and projecting the other accused, who had all played an active role, connived in creating forged documents, forgery and impersonation and thereby executing forged sale deeds. Using the forged sale deeds, he had executed a mortgage deed and thereafter, through power of attorney sold the property to the other accused, thereby encumbering and encroaching upon the defacto complainant's property. He further submitted that one Nithyanandham, son of Palanivel of Anna Nagar, Chennai is projected as though he is Nithyanand, husband of defacto complainant and owner of the property. The defacto complainant's husband Nithyanand is residing in USA, prior to it, he was residing at Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai and never resided at Anna Nagar, Chennai. Through this impersonated person, a power of attorney executed in favour of V.Srinivasan who is residing at Mambakkam. Both persons arranged an impersonator executed sale deed in favour of the petitioner through the power of attorney Inbarasu and the said Inbarasu executed sale deed on 06.08.2019, thereafter, on the same day, the petitioner Page No.6 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025executed a registered power of attorney in favour of one Mathupriya, who immediately executed a simple mortgaged deed with M/s.Bhavika M.Jain on 06.08.2019. Later, the mortgage discharged on 17.11.2019, thereafter, the power of attorney favouring Mathupriya cancelled on 17.12.2019 and the petitioner appointed M/s.Trusticon Builders and Developers Private Limited as power agent. The said M/s.Trusticon Builders and Developers Private Limited mortgaged the property on 05.10.2010 with M.Naresh Kumar Kothari. Thereafter, mortgage discharged and Gokuk Yadav, Director of M/s.Trusticon Builders and Developers Private Limited now executed sale deed in favour of Aadhimoolam and Yasodha Adhimoolam by Document No.9967 of 2022 on 13.05.2022. Thus, the petitioner cleverly manipulated, created forged documents and successfully encroached on the property, also creating encumbrance, putting the defacto complainant in entanglement and denying the rightful enjoyment of the property, which is a fundamental right.7.He further submitted that the DCB-II was reluctant to initially register the FIR, thereafter the defacto complainant had to move the Court Page No.7 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025for addressing the grievance. This Court in Crl.O.P.No.26821 of 2024 by order dated 27.11.2024 finding that the DCB-II is in slumber and dismissal of anticipatory bail application of the petitioner, directed the respondent namely CBCID Kancheepuram to take up investigation who re-registered the case as Crime No.1 of 2025. In this case, Palani Natesan, Sub Registrar, a co-accused and a rally to the petitioner arrested on 05.06.2025 who admitted and confessed having received Rs.2,50,000/- from the petitioner for entertaining and accepting the sale deed which was shrouded with mystery. Further, in the anticipatory bail petition in Crl.O.P.No.11306 of 2024, status report received by this Court in which it is clearly recorded that the petitioner created bogus general power of attorney in document No.10504 of 2019 in favour of his accomplice Inbarasu and created sale deed using fabricated documents. Further, in the order of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.10504 of 2019 while dismissing anticipatory bail, this Court held that the petitioner is an habitual offender and several FIRs registered against him of similar nature and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required. In the same order, it had also in detail referred to bogus money transaction which the petitioner had created to project as though sale Page No.8 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025consideration have been transferred to one Thilagavathy, the impersonator through bank transaction and through cheque of Rs.60 lakhs on 01.08.2019, Rs.65 lakhs on 06.08.2019, Rs.50 lakhs on 07.08.2019, Rs.50 lakhs on 09.08.2019, Rs.50 lakhs on 14.08.2019 and Rs.50 lakhs on 31.08.2019 and another Rs.54,81,840/- and Rs.4,34,150/- as TDS. All through City Union Bank Cheques which is recorded in Document No.10539 of 2019. This has been found to be false. The petitioner opened two bank accounts in the name of Vinayakk Tradings in City Union Bank A/c.No.500101012198975 and A/c.No.260109000188390 giving the same address at No.18 AIBEA Anna Nagar, Mogaippar West, Chennai- 600037 which confirmed that the money transferred is a sham, created book entry and nothing more. The other accused M.Murugesan, C.Sekar, V.Srinivasan and Inbarasu all arrested earlier granted statutory bail and the petitioner's custodial interrogation is very much required. Further, the petitioner is involved in the following cases:Page No.9 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025S.No.Case DetailsOffences1CC.15794 of 2022 on the file of CCB & CBCID MM Court, Egmore in Crime No.103 of 2019 (CC QUASH in Crl.OP.32689 of 2024 is pending)U/s.406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC2Crime No.125 of 2022 on the file of CCB, Land Grabbing Cell, Vepery, Chennai (FIR QUASH in Crl.O.P.32691 of 2024 is pending)U/s.420, 465, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC8.The defacto complainant produced two bank statements of Vinayakk Tradings and also the City Union Bank A/c.No.500101012198975, in which, it is seen that in the name of Thilagavathy, an account open form shown the same address of Mogapair West and the permanent address at Gugai, Salem, further the Impersonator photo is there. While opening account, the petitioner gave a letter to the Manager, City Union Bank, Ambattur Branch, Chennai certifying that Thilagavathy is working with Vinayakk Tradings since 2017. Scanned reproduction of account opening form, bank transaction, letter given by the petitioner to City Union Bank Manager and money trail are as follows:Page No.10 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025Page No.11 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025Page No.12 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025Page No.13 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025Page No.14 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025Page No.15 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025Page No.16 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025Page No.17 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 20259.He further submitted that this Court dismissed the anticipatory bail of the petitioner thrice and further, the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed SLP and there is no change in circumstances. On the other hand, further material collected by the respondent Police confirmed the petitioner's active role and the man behind the entire episode. In view of the above, this petition to be dismissed in limini.10.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police submitted that initially, DCB-II registered a case in Crime No.3 of 2024 against Nithyanandham and others, thereafter, the case transferred to the file of the respondent Police who renumbered the case as Crime No.1 of 2025. In this case, so far M.Murugesan, C.Sekar, V.Srinivasan and Inbarasu arrested earlier granted statutory bail and now Palani Natesan, Sub Registrar arrested on 05.06.2025. Except the petitioner, all other accused arrested. He further submitted that the petitioner is filing petitions one after another before this Court Court, Sessions Court and Apex Court despite all Court dismissed the petitions. Now, a Special Team formed and the petitioner soon to be apprehended. He Page No.18 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025further submitted that the petitioner now coming forward to cancel the forged documents would serve no purpose since the petitioner had encroached upon the property taking advantage that the defacto complainant and her husband are the resident of USA, further created further documents and encumbrance to the property and now the property value multiplied to several crores. The petitioner wants to tire the defacto complainant by force and encumbrance by sustaining encroachments. The written statement filed in the civil suit will prove the real intention of the petitioner. The petitioner questioning the defacto complainant’s status as wife of Nithyanand. In this case, one Nithyanandham of Anna Nagar projected as owner of the property by impersonation and forged documents claim his sale deed as genuine. Further, the amount recorded in the sale deed transferred through City Union Bank, proved to be false. Both accounts belong to the defacto complainant and not to Thilagavthy, as projected. The said Thilagavathy is none other than employee of Vinayakk Tradings with same address and the petitioner proprietor of Vinayakk Tradings.Page No.19 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 202511.He further submitted that the petitioner is the centre point around whom the entire case revolves. All the accused confirmed the petitioner’s role and they were paid a small pittance by the petitioner, for which they actively connived and participated. Further, the petitioner’s antecedents would prove that he is a land grabber, encroaching the lands creating encumbrance and litigation and there are several cases of similar nature pending against him. In this case, investigation is hitting a roadblock due to the abscondence of the petitioner, now a special team is formed to apprehend the petitioner. Hence, he prayed for dismissal.12.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.13.Earlier, the petitioner filed three anticipatory bail applications before this Court and one before the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpet and one before the Hon’ble Apex Court, all dismissed. This is the sixth anticipatory bail petition.Page No.20 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 202514.The petitioner claims that he purchased the property from one Inbarasu, Power of Attorney of Thilagavathy wife of Nithyanandham by Document No.10539 of 2019 on 06.08.2019. The said Inbarasu was appointed as Power of Attorney of Thilagavathy wife of Nithyanandham on 05.08.2019. On 06.08.2019, the petitioner purchased the property in which it is recorded the sale proceeds transferred through the bank including TDS on eight occasions. Cheques drawn through City Union Bank, Ambattur Branch in the name of Vinayakk Tradings and the petitioner is the Proprietor. Amounts transferred from A/c.No.260109000188390 to N.Thilagavathy A/c.No.500101012198975, are as follows:1.The amount of Rs.60 lakhs was transferred through cheque No.1969 on 01.08.2019.2.The amount of Rs.60 lakhs was transferred through cheque No.1979 on 06.08.2019.3.The amount of Rs.50 lakhs was transferred through cheque No.1977 on 07.08.2019.4.The amount of Rs.50 lakhs was transferred through cheque No.1978 on 09.08.2019.Page No.21 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 20255.The amount of Rs.50 lakhs was transferred through cheque No.1979 on 14.08.2019.6.The amount of Rs.50 lakhs was transferred through cheque No.1980 on 31.08.2019.7.The amount of Rs.50 lakhs was transferred through cheque No.1981 on 31.08.2019.8.The amount of Rs.54,81,840/- was transferred through cheque No.1982 on 30.09.2019.The above said eight transactions said to have paid by the petitioner to the Executant of the sale deed. The statement of account produced by the petitioner confirm that the sale deed had been executed on 06.08.2019 but the cheques transacted must later as per Bank statement of Accounts and confirmed the amount reflected in the sale deed not paid on the date of sale deed. Added to it, it is seen cheques all belong to Vinayakk Tradings to which the petitioner is the Proprietor and said impersonator N.Thilagavathy is an employee. This would show the sham transaction enacted by creating forged documents.Page No.22 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 202515.Added to it, the petitioner in the written statement filed in O.S.No.105 of 2023 questioned the defacto complainant’s husband executing settlement deed in favour of defacto complainant on 19.10.2015 in Document No.13217 of 2015 and thereafter the power of attorney by the defacto complainant in favour of Saravanan in document No.313 if 2019, he further question the status of defacto complainant as wife of Nithyanand and he executing settlement deed to the defacto complainant.16.It is to be seen that the defacto complainant earlier filed a writ petition in W.P.No.23310 of 2019 for the Sub Registrar holding the original settlement deed dated 19.10.2015. During the pendency of writ petition, the Sub Registrar was made known about the discrepancy and creation of encumbrance in the property of defacto complainant, hence, the Sub Registrar ought to have been vigilant and diligent, but not done so, on the other hand, facilitated and registering forged documents and creating encumbrance, registered mortgage deed, release of mortgage, executing further sale deed in favour of one Adhimoolam and Yasodha Adhimoolam by Gokul Yadev, Director of M/s.Trusticon Builders and Developers Private Page No.23 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025Limited through document No.1967 of 2011, dated 13.05.2022.17.It is seen now the petitioner in his letter dated 21.06.2023 to the Sub Registrar made a complaint against Gokul Yadav, Director of M/s.Trusticon Builders and Developers Private Limited making allegation he has not submitted proper accounts to the petitioner, hence, no documents to be registered in survey Nos.231/1A, 231/2A, 231/3A, 231/4A, 231/5A, 231/1 total extent of 1.08 acres in Kazhipattur Village, Thiruporur Taluk. The plaint copy, written statement, bank statement, copy of cheques all are documents produced by the petitioner. These documents on perusal and as per the above narration would confirm clear forgery, impersonation, creation of forged documents, producing false bank statements for payment of money. Further, in this case the investigation has to be conducted with regard to M/s.Trusticon Builders and Developers Private Limited Director Gokul Yadav and the purchaser of the property namely Yasodha Adhimoolam and Adhimoolam. Further, it is strange to see that in the subsequent sale deed document No.1967 of 2022, payment particulars is without any details. Though it is claimed that Rs.9,49,50,000/- paid by way Page No.24 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025of RTGS and another Rs.50,000/- for TDS, no details and particulars provided, then how such documents can be entertained and admitted, which needs further probe. No claim to a property by fraud can be termed as civil dispute.18.In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.19.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Crl.M.P.No.14814 of 2025 in Crl.O.P.No.17854 of 2025 is ordered.20.08.2025Speaking Order/Non Speaking OrderIndex : Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/Novv2Page No.25 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025To1.The Inspector of Police, CBCID – North, Kancheepuram.2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.Page No.26 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17852 of 2025M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.vv2PRE-DELIVERY ORDER INCrl.O.P.No.17852 of 202520.08.2025Page No.27 of 27