REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.855  OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7252 OF 2016)

SASIKALA PUSHPA AND OTHERS    ...Appellants

VERSUS

STATE OF TAMIL NADU               ...Respondent

With

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.856 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7287 OF 2016)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.857 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8206 OF 2016)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.858 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9064 OF 2016)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 859 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9065 OF 2016)

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. These  appeals  [SLP(Crl.)  Nos.7252,  7287  and  8206  of

2016] arise out of the judgment dated 14.09.2016 passed by the

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissing anticipatory bail

1

application  in  Crl.  OP(MD)  No.15370  of  2016  filed  by  the

appellants.  By the same judgment, the learned Single Judge of

the  High  Court  directed  the  Registrar  (Judicial)  to  lodge  a

complaint  with  the  jurisdictional  police  station  against  the

appellants with respect to the alleged forgery committed by them

in signing the vakalatnama.  Pursuant to the direction of the High

Court, the Registrar (Judicial) lodged a complaint with K. Pudur

Police Station, Madurai on 19.09.2016, on the basis of which, FIR

in  Crime  No.1331/2016  for  the  offences  punishable  under

Sections 193, 466, 468 and 471 IPC was registered against the

appellants.  

3. The first appellant was the then Member of Rajya Sabha

and  expelled  Member  of  AIADMK  Political  Party.   The  third

appellant is the husband of the first appellant.  A complaint was

filed by one Banumathi  who was then working as maid in the

house of the appellants in the year 2011 alleging that she was

sexually  harassed while  she was working  in  the  house of  the

appellants.  Based on the said complaint,  a criminal case was

registered  against  all  the  appellants  in  Crime No.5/2016 in  All

Women’s Police Station under Sections 294(b), 323, 344, 354(A)

and 506(i) IPC and under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition

2

of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.  The first appellant denied all

the allegations and claimed that the same was result of political

vendetta against her.   

4. The  appellants  filed  bail  application  under  Section  438

Cr.P.C.  in  Crl.OP(MD)  No.15370  of  2016  against  the  said

offences before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court along

with vakalatnama bearing the signature of appellants No.1 and 3

dated 18.08.2016.  The first appellant left for Singapore from New

Delhi on 17.08.2016.  While filing bail application in Crl.OP(MD)

No.15370 of  2016,  the appellants  filed vakalatnama wherein  it

was  stated  that  the  said  vakalatnama  was  signed  by  the

appellants  before  Advocate  Mr.  Vijaykumar  on  17.08.2016  at

Madurai.  Challenging the maintainability of the bail petition and

the  vakalatnama,  the  respondent-State  filed  preliminary

objections  and  submitted  that  appellant  No.1  had  left  for

Singapore  from  New  Delhi  on  17.08.2016  at  23.15  hours.

Similarly, appellant No.3 had left for Singapore from Bengaluru on

18.08.2016 at 09.30 AM.  It was alleged that the appellants filed

anticipatory bail application on 18.08.2016 as if they were present

in  Madurai  on  17.08.2016  and  signed  the  affidavit  and

vakalatnama in the presence of an advocate at Madurai.   The

3

High Court vide order dated 23.08.2016 directed the appellants to

appear  before  the  court  on  29.08.2016  and  to  give  their

explanation  with  regard  to  the  said  preliminary  objection.

Accordingly, the appellants appeared before the court on the said

date and submitted their affidavit before the High Court stating

that the date mentioned in the vakalatnama was an inadvertent

mistake.

5. In  the  impugned  judgment,  the  High  Court  held  that  the

explanations given by the appellants are not satisfactory and the

same is contradictory to the written version as contained in the

vakalatnama.  Referring to the affidavit filed by the appellants, the

High Court pointed out that appellant No.1 has given explanation

that she never came to Madurai for signing the vakalatnama and

that she had never signed the vakalatnama in the presence of

advocate Mr. Vijaykumar at Madurai.  The learned Single Judge

therefore held that prima facie, it appears that the document has

been forged and the same has been signed and executed outside

Madurai and produced before this court as though, it has been

signed and executed at Madurai and the same has been utilized

and filed before the High Court.  On the above findings, the High

Court  directed  the  Registrar  (Judicial)  to  lodge  the  complaint

4

against  the  appellants  with  the  jurisdictional  police  station.

Pursuant  to  the  direction  of  the  High  Court,  the  Registrar

(Judicial)  lodged  a  complaint  with  K.  Pudur  Police  Station,

Madurai on 19.09.2016.  Based on the complaint lodged by the

Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court, FIR in Crime No.1331/2016

was  registered  with  K.  Pudur  Police  Station,  Madurai  on

19.09.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 193, 466,

468 and 471 IPC.

6. Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed these appeals.

By the order dated 26.09.2016, the Supreme Court directed that

no  coercive  action  be  taken  against  the  appellants  in  Crime

No.1331/2016 and also in Crime No.5/2016 and granted interim

protection to the appellants from arrest.   

7. It  has  been  urged  by  Mr.  Sanjay  Hegde,  learned  senior

counsel appearing for the appellants that the High Court erred in

not  considering  the  fact  that  the  vakalatnama  contains  the

signature of the appellants and that the date thereon is a purely

clerical  error.   It  was  submitted  that  the  High  Court  has  not

recorded a finding to the effect that it is ‘expedient in the interest

of  justice’ to lodge a complaint  against  the appellants and the

High Court erred in issuing directions to lodge the complaint to

5

the  police  for  registering  criminal  case  against  the  appellants.

Further, it was contended that the High Court also erred in law in

treating  the  vakalatnama  filed  by  the  appellants  as  the  main

reason for dismissing the anticipatory bail application.   

8. Mr. Yogesh Kanna, learned counsel appearing for the State

of  Tamil  Nadu submitted that  the High Court  has categorically

found that the first appellant has not signed the vakalatnama in

Madurai  on  18.08.2016  and  therefore,  the  appellants  have

committed fraud upon the court and the High Court rightly issued

directions  to  the  Registrar  for  lodging  complaint  against  the

appellants.  The learned counsel further submitted that the first

appellant being the then Member of Parliament and her husband-

the third appellant  being a businessman and influential  person

are not cooperating with the investigation and the first appellant

has  given  evasive  reply  to  the  questions  raised  by  the

Investigation Officer.  It was submitted that no grounds are made

out for setting aside the directions issued by the High Court and

for quashing of the FIR No.1331/2016 registered on the directions

of  the High Court.   The learned counsel  placed reliance upon

Sachida Nand Singh and another v. State of Bihar and another

(1998) 2 SCC 493.

6

9. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused

the impugned judgment  and other  materials  placed on record.

The  point  falling  for  consideration  is  whether  in  the  facts  and

circumstances  of  the  case,  the  court  was  right  in  issuing

directions to lodge the complaint against the appellants before the

concerned police station  for  forgery  and for  creation  of  forged

document.

10. It is fairly well settled that before lodging of the complaint, it

is necessary that the court must be satisfied that it was expedient

in  the  interest  of  justice  to  lodge  the  complaint.   It  is  not

necessary that the court must use the actual words of Section

340 Cr.P.C.; but the court should record a finding indicating its

satisfaction that it  is expedient in the interest of justice that an

enquiry  should  be  made.   Observing  that  under  Section  340

Cr.P.C., the prosecution is to be launched only if it is expedient in

the interest of justice and not on mere allegations or to vindicate

personal vendetta, In Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah

(2005) 4 SCC 370, this Court held as under:-

“23. In view of the language used in Section 340 CrPC the court is

not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence

referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the section is conditioned by the

words  “court  is  of  opinion  that  it  is  expedient  in  the  interests  of

7

justice”.  This shows that such a course will  be adopted only if  the

interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the

complaint,  the  court  may  hold  a  preliminary  enquiry  and record  a

finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that

enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section

195(1)(b).  This expediency will  normally be judged by the court by

weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected

by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or

impact,  such  commission  of  offence  has  upon  administration  of

justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery may cause

a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may

deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like, but such

document  may  be  just  a  piece  of  evidence  produced  or  given  in

evidence  in  court,  where  voluminous  evidence  may  have  been

adduced  and  the  effect  of  such  piece  of  evidence  on  the  broad

concept  of  administration  of  justice  may  be  minimal.  In  such

circumstances, the court may not consider it expedient in the interest

of justice to make a complaint. …...”

11. Before  proceeding  to  make  a  complaint  regarding

commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C.,

the court must satisfy itself that “it is expedient in the interest of

justice”.  The language in Section 340 Cr.P.C. shows that such a

course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and

not  in  every  case.   It  has  to  be  seen  in  the  facts  and

circumstances of the present case whether any prima facie case

is made out for forgery or making a forged document warranting

8

issuance of  directions  for  lodging  the  complaint  under  Section

193, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.  

12. Based on the complaint of one Banumathi for the alleged

harassment, a case in Crime No.5/2016 under Sections 294(b),

323, 344, 354-A and 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu

Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act,  2002 was registered

against  the  appellants.   Appellant  No.1  filed  anticipatory  bail

application No.1627/2016 before the High Court  of Delhi.   The

High Court of Delhi vide order dated 11.08.2016 granted interim

protection to the appellants and directed the appellants to avail

the remedy before the court of competent jurisdiction in the State

of Tamil Nadu or the High Court of Madras.  The High Court of

Delhi  directed  that  no  coercive  action  be  taken  against  the

appellants in FIR No.5/2016 till 22.08.2016 subject to their joining

the  investigation  as  and  when  directed  by  the  Investigating

Officer.

13. Pursuant  to  the  order  of  the  High  Court  of  Delhi,  the

appellants filed anticipatory bail application before the High Court

of Madras at Madurai Bench in Bail Application No.15370/2016

on 18.08.2016.  In the said application, preliminary objection was

raised by the State alleging “that the appellants have played fraud

9

on  the  court  by  filing  a  vakalatnama  signed  by  them  on

17.08.2016 attested by an advocate from Madurai as if appellants

No.1  and  3  were  present  in  Madurai  on  17.08.2016  whereas

appellant No.1 left for Singapore from New Delhi on 17.08.2016”.

The  third  appellant  left  for  Singapore  from  Bengaluru  on

18.08.2016.  Alleging that they have filed false vakalatnama, the

respondent-State  raised  objection  for  maintainability  of  the

petition.   In  the  meanwhile,  on  22.08.2016,  the  Investigating

Officer included Section 9(I)(n) read with Section 10, Section 16

read  with  Section  17  of  Protection  of  Children  from  Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 in Crime No.5/2016.   

14. The High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application and

declined to grant pre-arrest bail in Crime No.5/2016.  The High

Court  held  that  the  first  appellant  never  came  to  Madurai  for

signing the vakalatnama in the presence of advocate Vijaykumar

and therefore, prima facie it appears that the document has been

forged  and  the  same  has  been  signed  and  executed  outside

Madurai as though it has been signed and executed at Madurai

and  the  same has  been  utilized  by  the  appellants  before  the

court.  Placing reliance upon Sachida Nand Singh, the High Court

observed  that  the  act  committed  by  the  appellants  amount  to

10

fraud  played  upon  the  court  and  thus,  directed  the  Registrar

(Judicial)  to  lodge  a  complaint  against  all  the  appellants  who

signed the vakalatnama in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15370/2016.

15. In the present appeals, we are mainly concerned with the

findings  of  the  High  Court  that  by  filing  the  vakalatnama  in

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15370/2016,  the  appellants  have played fraud

upon the court and the issuance of the direction to the Registrar

(Judicial) to lodge the complaint against the appellants for forgery.

As  pointed  out  earlier,  the  appellants  have  filed  Crl.O.P.(MD)

No.15370/2016  on  18.08.2016  in  which  they  have  filed  the

vakalatnama wherein it had been stated as under:-

“Executed before me this 17th day of August, 2016.  Before me, S.

Vijaykumar, No.51 law Chambers, High Court Madurai.”

The above version in the vakalatnama looks as if appellants No.1

and 3 have signed the vakalatnama in Madurai on 17.08.2016;

but actually the first  appellant did not visit  Madurai and left  for

Singapore  from New Delhi  on  17.08.2016  at  11.15  PM.   It  is

pertinent to note that in the affidavit filed by the appellants before

the High Court on 29.08.2016, the first appellant has taken the

plea  that  there  has  been a  clerical  error.   Appellant  No.1  has

stated that on 16.08.2016, she and her son-appellant No.2 signed

11

the  vakalatnama in  New Delhi  and that  the  same was signed

through appellant No.3 who was in Bengaluru.  It is stated that

after receiving the vakalatnama, appellant No.3 reached Madurai

on  the  same day  evening  by  road  and  handed  over  it  to  the

lawyer and returned back to Bengaluru by road on the same day

and thereafter, appellant No.3 left for Singapore in the morning of

18.08.2016 at 09.30 AM.  According to the appellants, when the

vakalatnama was filed in the High Court of Madras at Madurai

Bench,  it  was mistakenly  recorded that  it  has been signed on

18.08.2016 in Madurai.  The explanation given by the appellants

appears to be plausible and we find no reason to disbelieve the

same and their affidavit dated 29.08.2016.

16. A vakalatnama  is  only  a  document  which  authorizes  an

advocate to appear on behalf of the party and by and large, it has

no  bearing  on  the  merits  of  the  case.   We  find  force  in  the

contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellants that

there is no reason as to why a party would deliberately furnish a

false date and place in the vakalatnama.  Appellant No.1 left for

Singapore  from  New  Delhi  on  the  night  of  17.08.2016  and

appellant No.3 left for Singapore from Bengaluru on the morning

of  18.08.2016  at  09.30  AM  which  fact  admitted  by  both  the

12

parties.   In  the  affidavit  filed  before  the  High  Court,  the  first

appellant  clearly  stated  that  she  and  her  son  appellant  No.2

signed the vakalatnama on 16.08.2016 and the same was sent to

her husband-appellant No.3 who was in Bengaluru who in turn

handed  over  the  same  to  the  advocate  at  Madurai.   The

appellants  have  admitted  their  signatures  in  the  vakalatnama.

The  sequence  of  events  as  stated  in  the  affidavit  of  the

appellants, in our view, do not make out a case of forgery.  The

High Court has not recorded any finding as to why it rejected the

plea of the appellants made in the affidavit which has also been

reiterated by them in their explanation before the court when they

personally appeared before the court.   

17. Mr. Yogesh Kanna, the learned counsel appearing for the

State of Tamil Nadu placed reliance upon  Sachida Nand Singh

and  submitted  that  even  if  any  offence  involving  forgery  of

document is committed outside the precincts of the court and long

before its production in the court, the same would also be treated

as one affecting the administration of justice.  After referring to

various judgments, in Sachida Nand Singh, it was held as under:-

“11. The  scope  of  the  preliminary  enquiry  envisaged  in  Section

340(1)  of  the  Code  is  to  ascertain  whether  any  offence  affecting

administration of justice has been committed in respect of a document

13

produced in court or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court.

In other words, the offence should have been committed during the

time when the document was in custodia legis.

12. It would be a strained thinking that any offence involving forgery of

a document if committed far outside the precincts of the Court and

long before its production in the Court, could also be treated as one

affecting administration of justice merely because that document later

reached the court records.”

18. There could be no two views about the proposition that even

if forgery is committed outside the precincts of the court and long

before its production in the court, it would also be treated as one

affecting the administration of justice.  But in the present case, the

vakalatnama  filed  by  the  appellants  in  Crl.O.P.(MD)

No.15370/2016  seeking  anticipatory  bail  in  Crime  No.5/2016

cannot be said to be a forged document.  As pointed out earlier,

the appellants have admitted their signatures in the vakalatnama.

They only allege that it was mistakenly recorded that it has been

signed on 18.08.2016 at Madurai in the presence of the advocate.

Of  course,  the  version  in  the  vakalatnama  is  an  incorrect

statement.   In  our  opinion,  the High Court  was not  justified in

terming  the  said  mistake  or  error  as  fraud.   Fraud  implies

intentionally deception aimed or achieving some wrongful gain or

causing wrongful  loss or injury to another.   Intention being the

14

mens rea is the essential ingredient to hold that a fraud has been

played upon the court.   The learned counsel for the State has

submitted  that  upon  examination  of  the  signature  in  the

vakalatnama, the hand-writing expert has opined that it is not the

signature  of  the  appellants  and  therefore,  the  intention  of  the

appellants to create a forged document has been clearly made

out.  We do not find any merit in the submission as the appellants

themselves admitted their signatures in the vakalatnama.  In the

light of the statement of the appellants admitting their signatures

in the vakalatnama, we do not think that the opinion of the hand-

writing expert would stand on any higher footing.  There is nothing

on  record  to  suggest  that  the  appellants  gained  anything  by

playing  fraud  or  practising  deception.   In  the  absence  of  any

material  to  substantiate  the  allegations,  in  our  view,  the  High

Court was not justified in accusing the appellants fraud.   

19. Even  assuming  that  the  version  in  the  vakalatnama  is

wrong, mere incorrect  statement in  the vakalatnama would not

amount to create a forged document and it cannot be the reason

for  exercising  the  jurisdiction  under  Section  340  Cr.P.C.  for

issuance of direction to lodge the criminal complaint against the

appellants.

15

20. In  Amarsang Nathaji v.  Hardik Harshadbhai Patel  (2017) 1

SCC 117, this Court held that before proceeding under Section

340 Cr.P.C.,  the court  has to  be satisfied about the deliberate

falsehood  on  a  matter  of  substance  and  there  must  be  a

reasonable  foundation  for  the  charge.   Observing  that  some

inaccuracy  in  the  statement  or  mere  false  statement  may  not

invite a prosecution, it was held as under:-  

“6. The mere fact that a person has made a contradictory statement in

a  judicial  proceeding  is  not  by  itself  always  sufficient  to  justify  a

prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of the Penal Code, 1860 (45

of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”); but it must be shown that

the defendant has intentionally given a false statement at any stage

of  the  judicial  proceedings  or  fabricated  false  evidence  for  the

purpose of using the same at any stage of the judicial proceedings.

Even after the above position has emerged also, still the court has to

form an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to initiate

an inquiry into the offences of false evidence and offences against

public  justice  and  more  specifically  referred  to  in  Section  340(1)

CrPC,  having  regard  to  the  overall  factual  matrix  as  well  as  the

probable consequences of such a prosecution. (See K.T.M.S. Mohd.

v. Union of India (1992) 3 SCC 178). The court must be satisfied that

such an inquiry is required in the interests of justice and appropriate

in the facts of the case.”

The same view was quoted with approval in Chintamani Malviya

v. High Court of M.P. (2018) 6 SCC 15.

16

21. Applying the ratio of the above decisions, in our view, there

is  no  prima  facie evidence  to  show  that  the  appellants  had

intended to cause damage or injury or any other acts.  Since the

disputed version in the vakalatnama appears to be an inadvertent

mistake with no intention to make misrepresentation, in our view,

the  direction  of  the  High  Court  to  lodge  a  criminal  complaint

against the appellants cannot be sustained and the same is liable

to be set aside.

22. The learned counsel for the State submitted that in Crime

No.1331/2016,  criminal  case  was  registered  based  on  the

direction  of  the  High  Court  and  upon  completion  of  the

investigation, charge sheet has also been filed. As held in Pepsi

Foods  Limited  and  another  v.  Special  Judge  Magistrate  and

others (1998) 5 SCC 749, summoning of an accused in a criminal

case is a serious thing; more so to face a trial in criminal case

registered  with  the  direction  of  the  High  Court.   Since  the

appellants  themselves  have  admitted  their  signatures  in  the

vakalatnama and the version in the vakalatnama that they have

signed at Madurai on 18.08.2016 is an advertent mistake, in our

view, even if the trial proceeds, there may not be any possibility of

17

the appellants being convicted for the alleged offences of forgery

and for making forged document.   

23. In  Central  Bureau  of  Investigation  v.  Ravi  Shankar

Srivastava, IAS and Another (2006) 7 SCC 188, it was held as

under:-

“7. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this

nature is the exception and not the rule. The section does not confer

any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power

which  the  Court  possessed  before  the  enactment  of  the  Code.  It

envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction

may be exercised, namely,  (i)  to give effect  to  an order under the

Code,  (ii)  to  prevent  abuse  of  the  process  of  court,  and  (iii)  to

otherwise  secure  the  ends  of  justice.  It  is  neither  possible  nor

desirable  to  lay  down  any  inflexible  rule  which  would  govern  the

exercise of inherent jurisdiction. …….. In exercise of the powers the

court  would  be  justified  to  quash  any  proceeding  if  it  finds  that

initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or

quashing of  these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of

justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may

examine  the  question  of  fact.  When  a  complaint  is  sought  to  be

quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the

complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if

the allegations are accepted in toto.”

24. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, in our

view, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding with the

criminal prosecution against the appellants.  Without further going

into  the  merits  of  the  case,  we  quash  the  FIR  in  Crime

18

No.1331/2016 and also quash the charge sheet pending before

the  concerned  Magistrate.  The  FIR  and  the  charge  sheet  are

quashed only in the facts and circumstances of the present case

and  to  meet  the  ends  of  justice.  It  is  made  clear  that  taking

advantage of quashing of the case, the appellants shall not resort

to any further consequential proceedings.  

25. Crime No.5/2016:-  In the impugned order, the High Court

has  declined  to  grant  anticipatory  bail  to  the  appellants.   The

Supreme  Court  vide  order  dated  26.09.2016  granted  interim

protection to the appellants in Crime No.5/2016 registered in All

Women’s  Police  Station,  Pudukkottai,  Tuticorin  district.   The

learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellants  submitted

that the appellants have compromised the matter with the victim

Banumathi and that based on the compromise, they have already

filed quash petition before the High Court of Madras in which the

High Court has directed the parties to approach the concerned

police station.  We are not inclined to go into the merits of the said

matter,  except  to  extend  interim  protection  granted  to  the

appellants in Crime No.5/2016 till the disposal of the said case.

26. Crime No.276/2016:-  On 11.10.2016, the appellants along

with  other  accused  are  said  to  have  caused  damage  to  the

19

household articles and car of one Suganthi who was the advocate

for  the  victim-Banumathi  in  Crime  No.5/2016.  Based  on  the

complaint lodged by one Muthu-a relative of the said Suganthi, a

criminal  case  was  registered  against  the  appellants  under

Sections 147, 148, 448, 506(II) IPC and under Section 3 of the

Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss Act,

1992)  in  Crime  No.276/2016  of  Thisayanvilai  Police  Station,

Tirunelveli.  The  appellants  have  filed  the  anticipatory  bail

application before the High Court and by order dated 18.11.2016,

the High Court granted anticipatory bail to appellants No.2 and 3

and  the  learned  Single  Judge  took  the  view  that  custodial

interrogation of appellant No.1 is required and declined to grant

anticipatory bail to appellant No.1. The order dated 18.11.2016 is

the subject matter of challenge in SLP(Crl.) Nos.9064/2016 and

9065/2016. When the matter came up for admission before this

Court,  vide  order  dated  22.11.2016,  this  Court  has  granted

interim protection to appellant No.1. Therefore, case against the

appellants was registered under Sections 147, 148, 448, 506(ii)

IPC and Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of

Damage  and  Loss  Act,  1992)  in  Crime  No.276/2016

(Thisayanvilai, Thirunelveli).  The High Court declined anticipatory

20

bail to the first appellant by holding that her custodial interrogation

is  necessary  whereas  appellants  No.2  and  3  were  granted

anticipatory bail.   

27. In  the  result,  all  the  appeals  are  disposed  of  as  under:-

SLP(Crl.) No.7252/2016:-  The impugned order of the High Court

issuing  direction  to  lodge  criminal  complaint  against  the

appellants is set aside and the appeal is allowed.  Considering

the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case,  the  FIR  in  Crime

No.1331/2016  (K.  Pudur  Police  Station)  and  the  charge  sheet

filed thereon are quashed and the appeal is allowed accordingly.

As pointed out in para No.(23), taking advantage of the quashing

of the FIR in Crime No.1331 of  2016, the appellants shall  not

resort to any further or consequential proceedings.  

28. SLP(Crl.)  Nos.7287/2016  and  8206/2016:-   The  interim

protection granted to the appellants in Crime No.5/2016 (AWPS,

Pudukkottai, Tuticorin District) is extended till the disposal of the

criminal case arising out of Crime No.5/2016.

29. SLP(Crl.)  Nos.9064/2016  and  9065/2016:-   The  interim

protection  granted  to  the  appellants  by  the  order  dated

22.11.2016 in Crime No.276/2016 (Thisayanvilai Police Station,

21

Thirunelveli)  is  extended  till  the  disposal  of  the  criminal  case

arising  out  of  Crime No.276/2016.  The  appellants  are  granted

anticipatory bail in Crime No.276/2016 which shall hold good till

the disposal of the criminal case.  So far as quashing of criminal

case  in  Crime  No.276/2016,  the  appellants  are  at  liberty  to

approach the High Court and the High Court shall consider the

same on its own merits.    

……………………….J. [R. BANUMATHI]

………………………….J. [S. ABDUL NAZEER]

New Delhi; May 07, 2019

22