High Court · 2025

CRL.OP (MD) No.5630 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 16.04.2025PRESENTTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVELCRL.OP (MD) No.5630 of 2025B.UmasankariW/o.R.Saravanan,Sub Registrar, Viralimalai,Pudukkottai.... Petitioner / Accused RankNot KnownVs.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch - II Police Station, Pudukkottai District.(Crime No. 1 of 2025)... Respondent / ComplainantPRAYER :- The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 praying to grant pre-arrest bail to thepetitioner in Crime No.1 of 2025 on the file of the respondent-police. For Petitioner : Mr.T.J.Ebinezar Charles Advocate For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public ProsecutorFor Intervener: Mr.V.Kathirvel, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Jeyamohan, Advocate1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.5630 of 2025ORDER : The Court made the following order :- This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner on 24.03.2025under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, prayingto grant an order of pre-arrest bail.2. The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent- police forthe alleged offences punishable under Sections 319(2), 318(4) and 336(2) of'Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023' ['BNS' for short], in Crime No.1 of 2025 on the file ofthe respondent-police.3. The case of the prosecution is that Accused No.1, falsely claimed to be theManaging Director and authorized signatory of 'M/s. VGP Housing PrivateLimited' ['VGP Housing' for short], and in furtherance of that false claim, executed afraudulent Sale Deed dated 07.02.2025 in respect of lands measuring 10.78 Acressituated at BoothaKudi Village, Viralimalai Taluk, Pudukkottai District, covered inSurvey Nos.223/1, 222/6, 222/7, 222/8A, 236/1A, 236/1G, 236/1B, 236/1C, 237/4& 237/5A. The document was registered as Document No.812/2025 with the Sub-Registrar Office, Viralimalai. Despite a protest petition filed by the defactocomplainant on 24.11.2022, the petitioner (Sub-Registrar) allowed the registration ofthe sale deed without proper verification. Accused No.1 sold the property to A2 toA6 for a sale consideration of Rs.2,93,03,540/-. However, the said amount was paid2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.5630 of 2025into the personal bank account of Accused No.1, instead of that of VGP Housing,which is the rightful owner of the property. Accused No.1 had no legal authority torepresent VGP Housing. Accused No.1, in collusion with the purchasers and thepetitioner (Sub-Registrar), created and executed forged documents. Hence, the case.4. Mr.T.J.Ebinezar Charles, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that thepetitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and that afalse case has been foisted against her. He further submits that a protest petition wasfiled by one Thangiah, who has no locus standi, and that the petitioner hadinstructed him to produce a resolution copy of the Board of Directors in order to filethe protest petition, as he is neither the owner of the property nor was affected bythe transaction, as per the Circular dated 04.10.2018.4.1. He submits that since the said Thangiah failed to submit the requiredresolution, the petitioner dismissed the protest petition. It is further submitted thatsince Accused No.1, in the sale deed, claimed to have the power to sell the propertyas a partner, director, and shareholder of VGP Housing, as stated in the ArbitrationAwards dated 18.03.2021 and 13.12.2023, the petitioner (Sub Registrar) registeredthe sale deed submitted by Accused No.1. The learned counsel further submits thatthe petitioner merely discharged her official duties and has no involvement in thealleged offence. He accordingly prays for granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.5630 of 20255. Per contra, Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned Additional PublicProsecutor, submits that Accused No.1, without any authorization, sold theproperty to A2 to A6 belonging to the defacto complainant. He further submits thatin the Sale Deed, Accused No.1 had claimed to be authorized person to sell the saidproperty, but failed to produce any resolution of the Company or its Board ofDirectors authorizing him to do so and that Accused No.1, never having been aDirector or owner of the said property, had sold the same without any validauthorization. He further submits that even though a protest petition was filed onbehalf of the defacto complainant, the petitioner (Sub-Registrar) purportedlyregistered the sale deed in collusion with the other accused persons, withoutconsidering the records and the resolution of the company. As the investigation isstill pending, the learned Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. Mr.V.Kathirvel, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Jaya Mohan, learnedCounsel on record for the intervener / defacto complainant – VGP Housing, submitsthat Accused No.1 and other accused persons including the petitioner (Sub-Registrar) fraudulently alienated the property belonging to the intervener / defactocomplainant - VGP Housing, by falsely claiming to be an authorised signatory basedon an arbitration award that has already been set aside by this Court. The disputedproperty, measuring 10.78 Acres, was sold to Accused Nos.2 to 6 through a collusive4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.5630 of 2025Sale Deed dated 07.02.2025, and the same was registered by the petitioner (Sub-Registrar) despite a protest petition dated 24.11.2022 and without any authorisationor board resolution from VGP Housing. The original title documents remain withVGP Housing, but Accused No.1 misrepresented ownership and received the saleconsideration personally. The property is a prime land near Viralimalai Tollgate onthe Trichy-Madurai National Highway, and the market value was grosslyundervalued. Accordingly he prays to intervene and dismiss this pre-arrest bailpetition.7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materialsavailable on record.8. When the matter is taken up for hearing today (i.e., 16.04.2025), the learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5225 of 2025 [allegedpurchasers (A2 to A6) from Accused No.1] filed an affidavit before this Court,stating that they are ready and willing to cancel the Sale Deed dated 07.02.2025executed by Accused No.1 and registered by the present petitioner (Sub-Registrar).To be noted, this Criminal Original Petition and Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5225 of 2025 areheard simultaneously, and orders are being passed simultaneously. The relevantportion of the affidavit is extracted hereunder: “2. Despite of our bonafideness, we were called upon to attendthe enquiry by the Respondent Police pursuant to the FIR bearing Cr.5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.5630 of 2025No. 1 of 2025 filed by the Respondent Police against the said AmaldasRajesh. On account of which we had to move this Hon'ble Court byfiling the present petition seeking for Anticipatory Bail. In order toresolve the issue amicably, we have decided to cancel the said SaleDeed dated 07.02.2025 executed by the said Amaldas Rajeshrepresenting M/s. VGP Housing Pvt Ltd. We undertake to cancel theSale Deed dated 07.02.2025 at the earliest by cooperating by withAmaldas Rajesh and the same is without any prejudice to our rightsagainst Amaldas Rajesh.”9. Based on the above undertaking, the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6331 of2025 [the alleged seller (Accused No.1)] was granted bail, and the petitioners inCrl.O.P.(MD) No.5225 of 2025 [the alleged purchasers (Accused Nos.2 to 6)] weregranted pre-arrest bail. The allegation against the petitioner, who is a Sub-Registrar,is that she registered the Sale Deed presented by the other accused persons despite aprotest petition having been filed. In view of the offences allegedly committed bythe petitioner, and considering the undertaking given by the purchasers of the land,this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is notnecessary for the Investigating Agency in this case. Further, the petitioner haspermanent residence and deep roots in the society, and therefore, there is lesspossibility of absconding. Considering the same and with a view to give anopportunity to the petitioner to reform herself, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, however, subject to the following conditions:-(i) The petitioner shall be released on pre-arrest bail in the event of her arrest6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.5630 of 2025or in the event of her surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,Pudukottai, within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy ismade ready, on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty FiveThousand only) along with two sureties each for a like sum of Rs.25,000/- (RupeesTwenty Five Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial MagistrateNo.II, Pudukottai.(ii) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in theApplication for Suretyship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules ofPractice, 2019']. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudukottai shall obtain acopy of any one of identity proofs to ensure their identity. (iii) The petitioner shall furnish her residential address and mobile number tothe learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudukottai.(iv) The petitioner shall appear and sign before the respondent-police, weeklytwice i.e., on every Saturday and Sunday at 10:30 a.m., until further orders. (v) The petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation by a policeofficer as and when required.(vi) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement,threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as todissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.(vii) The petitioner shall also not, directly or indirectly, cause any threat to thedefacto complainant and witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence.(viii) The petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission ofthe Court.7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.5630 of 2025(ix) On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned JudicialMagistrate or Trial Court, as the case may be, is entitled to pass appropriate ordersagainst the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions areimposed by him as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K. Shaji vs. Stateof Kerala [(2005) 13 SCC 283]. 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed subject to theconditions stated supra. sd/- 16/04/2025 / TRUE COPY / /05/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.-I/ II /III/ IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. jen TO1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO II,PUDUKOTTAI.2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PUDUKOTTAIDISTRICT.3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICEDISTRICT CRIME BRANCH-II POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRASHIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1 CC to M/s.T.J.EBENEZER CHARLES, Advocate ( SR-4276[I] dated 16/04/2025 )8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.5630 of 2025 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.5630 of 2025 Date :16/04/2025 NBF/SAR/02.05.2025 9P/6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 9/9