M GOKULAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking Anticipatory Bail for the commission of alleged offences under Sections 420 and 506(ii) I.P.C. in connection with the case in Cr. No. 2513 of 2011. The case of the prosecution is that one M.K. Mohan lodged a complaint before the respondent police stating that there was some dispute with regard to the properties between himself and his brother, for that, he approached the petitioner for settlement, who is a very influential person and he would settle the dispute. On 2.4.2010, at about 11.30 a.m., both the de facto complainant and the petitioner met one Daniel Samuel, who is arrayed as 1st accused, in his office at Saidapet and invoked him with regard to the family dispute for which he demanded a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only). Subsequently, the misunderstanding between the brothers came to a halt.

(2.) The de facto complainant issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) to the petitioner/2nd accused, for giving the same to the first accused. On 2.11.2010, the petitioner withdrew the amount and paid to the same to the first accused. However, the 1st accused stating that he alone settled the matter and kept the property documents of the de facto complainant and intimidated the de facto complainant and also extracted money. Both the de facto complainant and his wife Ms. Lalitha Mohan withdrew the money and paid to the first accused through the petitioner. The 1st accused also threatened that he would do away with them. The de facto complainant had paid Rs. 5,50,00,000/- to the first accused then and there and got the documents. Further, both the accused together with criminally intimidated the de facto complainant to extract money.

(3.) The learned senior counsel Mr. Alagirisamy appearing for the petitioner would contend that earlier the de facto complainant had filed a complaint with the Joint Commissioner of Police, South Chennai on 13.7.2011 wherein the entire allegations are against the first accused and that the only allegation with regard to the petitioner is that he introduced him to the first accused. He further says that in the concluding portion of the said complaint, the de facto complainant has requested the police to take suitable action against the first accused and it shows that there was no intention on his part to take any criminal action against this petitioner. He also says that the allegations in the earlier petition were made by the petitioner in a casual manner, which were relied upon by this Court. In the earlier petition, it is stated that the de facto complainant has given his property documents and 3 blank cheques to the petitioner which were handed over to the de facto complainant. The learned senior counsel also says that the brother of de facto complainant by name Pratap Moturi has given an affidavit, wherein he has stated that the dispute between brothers is pending and that the allegations in the complaint are not true. It is his submission that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to harass the de facto complaint and that he may be granted anticipatory bail.