JUNAID ABID ALI Vs. MOHAMMED YASEEN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to cancel the bail granted to the 1st respondent herein/accused by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, vide order dated 06.09.2014 in Crl.M.P. No. 4375 of 2014 in respect of CCB Crime No. 255 of 2014 pending on the file of the 2nd respondent-Police.

(2.) The brief facts, as stated by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, which are necessary to decide this petition, are as follows_

(3.) The learned counsel for the 1st respondent herein/accused has filed a counter stating that he has entered into a sale agreement with the petitioner and in the capacity of Power Agent of Ramesh and Sivagami, he signed the documents and the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs. Even at the time of entering into Sale Agreement, the petitioner knew the entire history of the property. As per the Sale Agreement, if any dispute arose it should be proceeded as per Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act. But, without invoking the arbitration proceedings, the petitioner had got the signature in the Deed of Cancellation of sale and obtained 7 cheques to the tune of Rs. 3,30,00,000/- from the 1st respondent by threat and coercion with the help of hired hooligans. On the other hand, the petitioner has made false and bald allegations against the 1st respondent as if he had threatened him with dire consequences. In fact, the 1 st respondent has transferred three properties worth over Rs. 1,25,00,000/- in favour of the relatives of the petitioner as per his request. The 1 st respondent is only a power agent of one Ramesh and Sivagami; but, purposely the petitioner has targeted only the 1st respondent herein. Even after one year of registration of the case, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are not interested in arresting the said Ramesh and Sivagami due to vested interest. Suppressing all the material facts, the petitioner has preferred a complaint in Crime No. 255 of 2014 on the file of the 2nd respondent, who in turn without verifying the real facts had registered the case under Sections 406 & 420 r/w 34 IPC and arrested the 1 st respondent and remanded him to judicial custody on 21.08.2014. When the 1st respondent was in judicial custody, he was forced to execute an affidavit to come out on bail and accordingly, he executed an affidavit. Immediately after coming out on bail, the 1st respondent's father-in-law Mr.N.O.H. Ayub Khan gave a property worth over Rs. 2,00,00,000/- to the petitioner as collateral security along with all the original documents pertaining to the property including the Sale Deed dated 08.03.2010 and he is also willing to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner to save the 1st respondent from the case. But, the petitioner did not mention the above facts before the Court. Thus, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent sought for dismissal of the present petition.