High Court · 2025

CRL.OP (MD) No.2158 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTReserved on : 18.03.2025Pronounced on : 09.04.2025COROMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVELCRL.OP (MD) No.2158 of 20251.Roobas Deepak2.Neethiperumal... Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 & 2Vs.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. byThe Inspector of Police,Usilampatti Town Police Station,Madurai District.(Crime No.32 of 2025)... Respondent / ComplainantPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya NagarikSuraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner inconnection with Crime No.32 of 2025 on the file of the respondent-police.For Petitioners: Mr.P.Arumugavel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)For Intervener: Mr.Srikanth, AdvocateORDERThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners on 30.01.2025under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying to1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.2158 of 2025grant an order of pre-arrest bail.2. The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent-police for theoffences punishable under Sections 406 & 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 andSections 296(b) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.32 of 2025on the file of the respondent-police.3. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is residing andworking in the USA. He had planned to construct a commercial complex atUsilampatti and a godown in Chennai. For this purpose, he entrusted theconstruction work to the first petitioner. The defacto complainant executed a powerof attorney in favour of the first petitioner, and they also entered into a constructionagreement in the year 2018. Pursuant to the agreement, the defacto complainanttransferred a sum of Rs.3.33 crores to the account of the first petitioner. However, thefirst petitioner constructed only the ground floor at Usilampatti and failed tocomplete the construction of the first and second floors. The first petitioner alsorented out eight shops on the ground floor to certain individuals in his own name.Subsequently, the defacto complainant visited Chennai to inspect the construction ofthe godown. It was found that only the basement for the godown yard had been laid.When the defacto complainant visited the said property, the second petitionerallegedly restrained him and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the case.2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.2158 of 20254. Mr.P.Arumugavel, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that thepetitioners are innocent persons, that they have not committed any offence as allegedby the prosecution and that a false case has been foisted against the petitioners. Hefurther submitted that the defacto complainant approached the first petitioner forthree separate works: (1) construction of a commercial complex at Usilampatti, (2)construction of a building at Kospur, Chennai, and (3) garden development work atUsilampatti. There were encroachments on the properties allotted for theconstruction of the commercial complex and the garden at Usilampatti. The firstpetitioner took steps to remove these encroachments and actively participated in thepolice enquiry and the RDO enquiry. Ultimately, the encroachments were removed,and the construction was carried out. He further submitted that the defactocomplainant had paid approximately Rs.3 crores on various dates between 12.10.2017and 02.03.2024, through around 400 transactions. Out of the total amount, the firstpetitioner constructed the commercial complex at Usilampatti at a cost of Rs. 2.75crores, the building at Kospur, Chennai for Rs.69 lakhs, and further incurred anexpenditure of Rs. 25 lakhs for the garden development at Usilampatti. Altogether,the first petitioner has spent approximately Rs.3.69 crores, including expenses forbuilding plan approval, security staff salaries, tax payments, electricity connectionsecurity deposits, and other incidental charges. However, the defacto complainant,3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.2158 of 2025without fully settling the construction-related dues, is now attempting to takephysical possession of the properties. The learned counsel further stated that thepresent issue is purely a civil dispute. The defacto complainant, in collusion withcertain police officials, is attempting to twist the facts to give a criminal colour to thematter by cheating. In fact, the defacto complainant never visited the property on04.08.2024, as alleged in the police complaint. The first petitioner is in possession ofCCTV footage to substantiate the same. The complaint is a fabricated story, createdonly for the purpose of harassment. He, however, submitted that the petitioners areready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. He therefore prayedfor grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.5. Per contra, Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned Additional Public Prosecutorappearing for the respondent-police, submitted that there are two accused persons inthis case, A1 and A2, and they are before this Court. He further submitted that thedefacto complainant is residing in the USA and had sent money to the first petitionerfor executing three separate projects. For this purpose, the defacto complainanttransferred more than Rs.3 crores to the first petitioner through bank transactions.However, after receiving the said amount, the first petitioner failed to complete theconstruction works as agreed. Furthermore, the petitioners have unlawfully inductedcertain persons as tenants in the building and collected rent from them, despite4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.2158 of 2025having no legal authority to do so. He further submitted that the petitioners have noright to obstruct the defacto complainant, who is the rightful owner of the property.Even after the defacto complainant cancelled the power of attorney earlier executedin favour of the first petitioner, the petitioners continued to prevent him fromentering into his property. Therefore, he contended that, if the petitioners are grantedpre-arrest bail, they will cause threat to the defacto complainant and tamper with theevidence. Hence, he submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners isnecessary in this case. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss this Criminal OriginalPetition.6. Mr.Srikanth, the learned counsel for the intervener/defacto complainant,submitted that on 21.01.2025, when the defacto complainant attempted to visit hisproperty in Usilampatti, he was obstructed and threatened by A2. He furthersubmitted that A1 misused the Power of Attorney executed by the defactocomplainant by executing rental agreements in his own name, misappropriatingfunds, and continuing to lease out the property even after the Power of Attorney wasrevoked on 05.08.2024. He also submitted that the defacto complainant has beenunable to take possession of the property due to the unlawful actions of the accusedpersons. Furthermore, A1 filed a civil suit in O.S. No.124 of 2024 with false pleadingsin an attempt to create a legal cover for their illegal occupation. The learned counsel5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.2158 of 2025further contended that if the petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail, they will causethreat to the defacto complainant and tamper with the evidence. Accordingly, heprayed to dismiss this Criminal Original Petition.7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials availableon record.8. Admittedly, the defacto complainant executed an unregistered specificPower of Attorney in favour of the first petitioner, authorizing him to constructbuildings on properties located in Usilampatti and Chennai. When the defactocomplainant came to India and visited the properties, the construction of thebuildings remained incomplete. The first petitioner had also rented out certain shopsin the commercial building to third parties, for which he is said to have receivedamounts as advance and have been collecting rent. When the defacto complainantattempted to enter into the building, the second petitioner restrained him fromaccessing the property. Following this incident, the Power of Attorney was cancelledby the defacto complainant. According to the first petitioner, the defacto complainantis liable to pay him certain amounts towards the construction of the buildings. Thefirst petitioner has also filed a civil suit in O.S.No.124 of 2024 seeking a permanentinjunction, based on the unregistered Power of Attorney dated 01.07.2016. 9. In view of the above facts, this Court is of the opinion that, since the6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.2158 of 2025construction was undertaken pursuant to a contract, the core issues “whether thePower of Attorney was coupled with interest, whether the defacto complainant isliable to pay any balance amount, and etc., must be determined during the course ofthe trial or by the competent Civil Court. It is prima facie established that the firstpetitioner has no right over the property as on date. Therefore, the petitioners are notentitled to seek protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, orunder Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, as amended by the Registration andOther Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 (Act 48 of 2001, with effect from 24September 2001). Further, the investigating agency has recorded the statements of thetenants, namely, Vinoth, Anandhakumar, Satheeshkumar, Naveen, Praveen Kumar,Murugan, Thirukumar, Puthiyavan, Shanmuganathan, and Mahalingam. Thesestatements prima facie indicate that the petitioners had inducted various persons astenants into the building. Admittedly, the building is owned by the defactocomplainant. In view of the cancellation of the Power of Attorney, the petitionershave no legal right over the said property. However, the petitioners continue tocommit the offence by unlawfully restraining the defacto complainant from enteringinto his property. Hence, the custody of the petitioners is necessary to prevent thecontinuation of commitment of offence and to unearth the truth, including the detailsof the amounts received by the petitioners from the tenants for letting out the shops7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.2158 of 2025and other related transactions. In view of the above facts and circumstances, thisCourt is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.10. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 09/04/2025 / TRUE COPY / /04/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. PALTO1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,USILAMPATTI TOWN POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.2158 of 2025 Date :09/04/2025SA/SAR. /23.04.2025/8P/3CMadurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023. 8/8