CRL OP(MD)/24204/2016 of S.ANNAMALAI, Vs THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF on 29 December 2016

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT( Criminal Jurisdiction )

Thursday, the Twenty Ninth day of December Two Thousand SixteenPRESENT

The Hon`ble Mr Justice R.MAHADEVAN

CRL OP(MD) No.24204 of 2016

1 S.ANNAMALAI,

... 1[st] PETITIONER /6[th] ACCUSED

2 H.S.UPENDRA KAMATH, ... 2[nd] PETITIONER / 7[th] ACCUSED

Vs

1 STATE REPRESENTED BYTHE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, CID, BANGALURU.2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THOOTHUKUDI.3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THOOTHUKUDI CENTRAL POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI.

... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

For Petitioner : M/S.S.ANNAMALAI Advocate For Respondent : Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the firstrespondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections109, 120B, 406, 108A, 420 and 409 IPC in Crime No.418 of 2016 on thefile of the first respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2.Mr.P.Kandasamy, Government Advocate (Crl.side), took notice for the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the de facto complainant preferred the present complaint beforeIndira Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru on 16.12.2016 stating thatthe petitioners have hatched a criminal conspiracy with the 4[th]accused to destabilize Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank (TMB). He alsosubmitted that the de facto complainant filed a petition underSection 93 of Cr.P.C. before the I Additional Chief MetropolitanMagistrate, Bangalore seeking to issue a search warrant. He furthersubmitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in thiscase and prays for interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to theorder passed by this Court in W.P.No.25521 of 2015 dated 25.11.2016,wherein this Court has considered the law relating to thejurisdiction of this Court to issue a writ for quashing FirstInformation Report registered in a Police Station outside the Stateof Tamil Nadu, by referring to various judgments. It was held inthat order that even though the First Information Report registeredin a police station outside the State of Tamil Nadu deserves to bequashed, yet, judicial discipline demands that this Court should nottrespass into the territorial jurisdiction of the Court outsideTamil Nadu and assume the power to quash the First InformationReport, especially in the light of the reasoning given in the caseof S.Ilanahai v. The State of Mumbai and others, reported in 2015-1-LW (Crl.) 395.

5.In the light of the said proposition laid down by this Courtin W.P.No.25521 of 2015 dated 25.11.2016, as an interim measure, thewarrant for arrest in pursuant to registration of the Firsthttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/Information Report in above said case shall be kept in abeyance for a period of four weeks from today and the matter is left to be dealtwith by the Court within whose jurisdiction, the First InformationReport has been registered, in accordance with law.

6.With the above interim protection, the Criminal Originalpetition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioners to approachthe jurisdictional Court, within whose jurisdiction, the FirstInformation Report has been registered, within a period of fourweeks from today.

sd/-

29/12/2016

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1.THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OFPOLICE, CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, CID, BANGALURU.

2.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,THOOTHUKUDI.

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,THOOTHUKUDI CENTRAL POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI.

4.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTORMADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

+1. CC to M/S.S.ANNAMALAI Advocate SR.No.83785