MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION.

2
(Under Section 482 BNSS R/w Section 438 of Cr.P.C)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS.

(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

Crl.O.P.No. of 2O24
In
Crime No. 76 of 2024
(on the file of the Inspector of Police, Avadi Central Crime Branch
LD-1, Avadi City, Avadi, Chennai 600 054)

1. K. Sarojini (F/80 Years)

Wife of late E. KuPPusamY Naidu
Old No.2, New No. 624/4,
Sampangi Street, PoomPozhil Nagar
Kovilpathagai, Avadi Taluk
Chennai 600 062

2. A. Prema (F/60 years)

Wife of Adhikesavalu
No.105, Malayathamman Koil Street
Mannurpet, Ambattur
Chennai 600 050

3. R. Sulochana (F/58 years)

Wife of Raghupathy
No 97/3, Manickam Pillai Street
Mannurpet, Ambattur
Chennai 600 050

4. G.M. Sreevidya (F/38 years)

Wife of Thilak
No.3, Opp.Tth Street, Main Road
Vaishnavi Nagar
Chennai 600 109

5. G.M.Haritha (F/36 years)

Wife of Bharath
No.3, Opp.Tth Street, Main Road
Vaishnavi Nagar
Chennai 600 109 ... Petitioners/Accused.
-VS-
 2

State by InsPector of Police.

Avadi Central Crime Branch LD-1,
Avadi City, Avadi, Chennai 600 054
(Crime No. 76 of 2024) ... Respondent/Com Plaina nt.

PETIT ION F OR AN TI IPAT ORY BAIL

The Petitioners above named states as follows:-

1. The address for service of all notices and processes on the

PetitionersiSthatoftheirCounselM/s,s.sADAsHARAM,
V.PREMKUMARandV.S.RAVICHANDRANhavingofficeatNo.93
Law Chambers, High Court Buildings, Chennai 600104'

2.ThePetitionersstatethatthelstpetitioneristhewifeoflate
Kuppusamy Naidu and the petitioners 2 and 3 are the
daughters of

late Kuppusamy Naidu and the petitioners 4 and are the grand

daughters of late Kuppusamy Naidu' The 1't

petitioner is permanently

residing in premises bearing Old No'2, New No' 624/4' Sampangi

Chennai 600
Street, Poompozhil Nagar, Kovilpathagai, Avadi Taluk'

062 for the last more than 40 years and late Kuppusamy Naidu
vacant house site of an extent of 4956 sq' feet in
premises
occupied

bearing old No.2, New No. 62414, Sampangi Street, Poompozhil

Nagar, Kovilpathagai, Avadi Taluk, Chennai 600

062 in the year 1975

poultry farm of his own in

and since 1975 he had been maintaining a
part and
the above said property comprised in Survey No' 62615A
house site was
626/4A part of Kovilpathagai village' The vacant
 3 /
v)

occupiedbylateKuppusamyNaidu,thedeceasedhusbandofthelst
petitioner and deceased father of the petitioners 2 and 3 for his

commercial purpose of running a poultry farm as stated above and

right from 1980 he ceased to run the poultry farm and constructed a

residential superstructures for his convenient occupation and right

from 1980 late Kuppusamy Naidu and the 1st petitioner were living in

the above said property and late Kuppusamy Naidu obtained power
supply in his own name for the above said property and also

subjected the above said property for property tax assessment with

the Avadi Municipality as it was earlier and now Avadi Municipality

has been declared as Corporation by the Government of Tamilnadu'

3. The petitioners further state that late Kuppusamy Naidu had

been making the payment of property tax regularly to the above said

residential premises in his own name and he expired on 31.12.2002

leaving behind the petitioners 1 to 3 and the deceased mother of the

petitioners 4 and 5 by name Vijaya as the legal heirs entitled to

succeed to the estate of late Kuppusamy Naidu and one of the

daughters of late Kuppusamy Naidu by name Guna already got

separated from the family of Kuppusamy Naidu.

4. The petitioners further state that after the demise of late

Kuppusamy Naidu, the 1st petitioner is living in the above said
premises in her own right as absolute owner of the same having
 4
\0

succeeded to the rights oF late Kuppusamy Naidu who had already

prescribed title to the above said property by way of adverse

possession and after the demise of late Kuppusamy Naidu the I't
petitioner had been making the payment of property tax for the

above said property in her own name and also she had been enjoying

the supply of electricity to the residential premises and she has also
prescriptive title to the property

5. The petitioners further state that having prescriptive title to the

property referred to above, the 1st petitioner is the absolute owner of

the property in question, executed a settlement deed dated

14.05.2009 bearing document No. 2842 of 2009 registered on the file

of the sub Registrar, Ambattur whereby she had settled an extent of

1652 sq.feet of house site with a building therein including power

supply, well, bath room and latrine already constructed by late

Kuppusamy Naidu in the above said property and right from
14.05.2009 in favour of the 2nd petitioner by the 1st petitioner, the 2nd

petitioner has been enjoying the above said property namely B

Schedule property in the settlement deed in her own right as absolute

owner of the same.

6'Thepetitionersfurtherstatethatsimilarlythelstpetitioner
executed another settlement deed dated 14'05'2009 bearing
document No. 2843 of 2009 registered on the file of the Sub
 5

4
Registrar, Ambattur whereby she had settled an extent of 1652

sq.feet of house site with a building therein including power supply'

well, bath room and latrine already constructed by late Kuppusamy

Naidu in the above said propefty and right from 14'05'2009 in favour

of the 3'd petitioner by the 1st petitioner, the 3'd petitioner has been

enjoying the above said property namely B Schedule property in the

settlement deed in her own right as absolute owner of the same'

7. The petitioners further state that similarly the 1't petitioner

executed another settlement deed dated 14.05'2009 bearing
document No. 2841 of 2009 registered on the file of the Sub

Registrar, Ambattur whereby she had settled an extent of 1652

sq.feet of house site with a building therein including power supply,

well, bath room and latrine already constructed by late Kuppusamy

Naidu in the above said property and right from 14.05.2009 in favour

of the grand daughters of the lst petitioner namely the petitioners 4

and 5 by the lst petitioner, the petitioners 4 and 5 have been

enjoying the above said property namely B Schedule property in the

settlement deed in their own right as absolute owners of the same.

8. The petitioners further state that right from the date of

settlement deed namely 14.05.2009 the petitioners 2 to 5 are

enjoying the respective shares settled to them by the 1st petitioner in

her own right as absolute owner of the same having succeeded to the
 6
a
rights of late Kuppusamy Naidu and property taxes are being paid in

the name of the 1st petitioner to the above said property without any

default to the Avadi Municipality earlier and now corporation of Avadi.

9. The petitioners further state that a week prior to 07'06'2024

three individuals not known and not familiar with the 1st petitioner
met the 1st petitioner by about 5.00 PM and demanded her to vacate

the properties in question and surrender possession of the same

stating that one Mr. Raj bharath is the owner of the same' The 1st

petitioner declined to the demand made by the above said persons

stating that she is the owner of the property in question and she has

also settled the property in favour of her daughters and grand

daughters. However, the above said individuals threatened the 1st

petitioner with dire consequences if she fails to vacate and hand over

vacant possession.

10. The petitioners further state that thereafter a letter dated

07.06,2024inCNo.256lDc-cCB/AVD/coP-GRI/24wasreceivedby
thepetitionersasissuedbytheRespondentpolicewherebyitwas
stated that a complaint has been given by one Rajbharath and

therefore the petitioners were required to appear before the

Respondent police on 08.06.2024 by 10'30 AM' On 0B'06'2024
the

petitioners 2 and 3 appeared before the respondent police and shown

the copies of the settlement deeds and tax payment receipts and the
 1

a
respondent police directed the petitioners 2 and 3 to come and
appear before the respondent police on L5.06.2024. On 15.O6.2024

the petitioners 2 and 3 appeared before the respondent police

and submitted a letter dated 15.06.2024 which was not
received by the respondent police and the respondent police
threatened the petitioners 2 and 3 stating that if the petitioners do
not vacate and hand over vacant possession to the above said
Rajbharath who according to the respondent police, is the owner of

the property in question, the respondent police would register a FIR

and arrest the petitioners. Stating so, the petitioners were directed to

vacate and hand over vacant possession of the property in question

on or before 24.06.2024, failing which the petitioners will be

arrested.

11. The petitioners further state that the above said

Rajbharath representing Pungka & Co and son of one Ashokan,

residing at No. 1O8O/A, 12th Street, Poompuhar Nagar,
Kolathur, Chennai 600 O99 filed a caveat against the
petitioners expecting the petitioners to file a civil suit against
the above said company.
t2. The petitioners further state that the petitioners are
enjoying the property in question in their own right as
absolute owners of the same having succeeded to the right, title
 B

\0
and interest of late Kuppusamy Naidu and the above said individual

by name Rajbharath and the company represented by him have got

no right to interfere with the peaceful possession, occupation and
enjoyment of the above said property by the petitioners'

l3.ThepetitionershavecometoUnderstandthattheabovesaid
Rajbharath claiming to have purchased the property in the year 1965

has given a complaint making allegations of trespass, criminal

intimidation and causing injuries against the 1st petitioner who is

aged about 80 years who is incapable of moving out of her residence

due to her old age. The allegations levelled against the 1"t
petitioner and the demand made by the respondent police
following the complaint of the above said Rajbharath are
totally illegal and against taw and the respondent police were
intending to file FIR against the petitioners for the offence
under section 324t 453,454 and 506 (i) IPC namely causing
injuries, trespass and criminal intimidation'
L4. The petitioners further state that except the 1st petitioner

the other petitioners are living in different place but they are
having

right,titleandinterestovertherespectiveportionssettledtoandin
favour of the petitioners 2 to 5 and the 1't petitioner even though
she

had settled different portions of the above said properties to her

been permitted
daughters and grand daughters, the 1st petitioner has
 9

by the other petitioners to reside in the same property till her life
in the
time and accordingly the 1st petitioner is permanently residing

above said ProPertY.

15. The petitioners further state that the above said Rajbharath

either in his individual capacity or representing the company cannot

interfere with the peaceful possession, occupation and enjoyment of

the above said property by the petitioners except under due

process of law and without taking recourse to due process of

law, the de-facto complainant cannot interfere with the

petitioners' peaceful enioyment of the property in question'
The right of the de-facto complainant has already ceased to
existandextinguishedascontemplatedundersection2Tof
the Limitation Act read with Article 65 of the Limitation Act
and if at all the de-facto comptainant has got any right for

possession of the property in question, it is open to him to

adopt due process of law by filing a civil suit against the
petitioners and as a matter of fact after the expiry of more
than 4O years, it is not oen to the de-facto complainant even
to file a civil iuit for possession and therefore the de-facto
complainant has adopted indirect way of intimidating the
petitioners giving a fatse comptaint to the respondent police
andtherespondentpoliceisalsocolludingwiththede-facto
g 10

complainant and threatening the petitioners of dire

consequences if they do not vacate and hand over vacant
possession of the property in question.

16. The Petitioners further submit that apprehending arrest by the

Respondent-Police, inspite of the fact that it is purely a civil dispute

with regard to the immovable property, the Petitioners moved an

application for anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.No.14448 OF 2024 on the

file of this Hon'ble Court and this Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass

an order dated 24.6.2024 whereby the Respondent police was

directed to conduct enquiry strictly following the procedures and if

any prima facie case is made out, to register the FIR or to close the

enquiry within 8 weeks from 24.6.2024. The Petitioners were also

directed to co-operate with the enquiry. Accordingly, the Petitioners

co-operated with the Respondent police for enquiry and after enquiry

was over, inspite of the fact that there is a civil dispute pending in

O,S.No.371, 372 and 373 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal

District Judge, Thiruvallur, now transferred to learned II Additional

District Judge, Poonamallee, of which due notice was communicated

to the Respondent-Police on L2-7.2024, following the pressure given

by the defacto complainant and to accommodate the defacto

complainant registered a FIR, for offences under Section 465, 468,

467, 47L and 420 I.P.C.

 1l
(

17. The Petitioners further submit that the Respondent-Police is

very much aware oF the pendency of the above said Civil Suits as

against the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant is also

very much aware of the pendency of the civil suits, in which the
Petitioners have prayed for prescriptive title by way of adverse

possession of the petitioners and their family members including late

Kuppusamy Naidu, who have been enjoying the propefty in dispute

for about 50 years paying necessary property tax, water tax and

electricity bills regularly.

18. The Petitioners further submit that inspite of the fact that it is

purely a civil dispute between the petitioners and the defacto

complainant, the Respondent police vindictively registered the case

against the Petitioners and the Petitioners apprehended arrest by the

Respondent police in spite of the fact that the Respondent Police

called upon the Petitioners 2 and 3, issuing notice under Section 41A

of Cr.P.C. for enquiry and accordingly the petitioners appeared and

enquiry was over. However, the Respondent Police are threatening to

arrest the petitioners and the petitioners are apprehending arrest by

the Respondent police and hence the petitioners are filing this

anticipatory bail application. The interest of justice requires that the

petitioners have to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in

Crime No. 76 of 2024 on the file of the Respondent Police. The

 72
D(

petitioners undertake to abide by the conditions that may be imposed

on them, for releasing them on anticipatory bail. The Petitioners are

law abiding citizens and they have not committed any offence as

alleged. The Petitioners had no bad antecedents whatsoever'

19. The Petitioners state that this is the first anticipatory bail
application filed before this Hon'ble court after the FIR was reglstered

and that they have not filed similar petition before any other courts'

The Petitioners therefore pray that this Hon'ble Court may be

pleased to release the petitioners on'bail in the event of their arrest

in crime No.76 of 2024 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Avadi

ccB police station, Avadi city, the Respondent herein on such terms
and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case and thus render justice'

Dated at Chennai on this the 27th day of August 2024'

VS'R";&^'Jn'-
COUNSEL FOR PETTTIONERS.

Bail to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate-Il,

Poon a ma llee.
J
IN THE H]GH COURT OF ]UDICATURE AT
MADRAS.
(Criminal Appellate lurlsdiction)

Crl.o.P.No. of 2024
In
FIR No. 76 of 2024
(on the file of the Inspector of Police,
Avadi Central Crime Branch
LD-1, Avadi City. Chennai 600 054)

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL

M/s. S. SADASHARAM (E.No.29t/1974)

V.PREMKUMAR (E.No. 1Oal1998)
V.S.RAVICHANDRAN(E.No. 177 t / 2004)

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS