Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Dr. A.R. Vijayakumar Ilango vs V.A. Rajendran on 8 October, 2021
Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, B.V. Nagarathna
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No 1216 of 2021
[Arising out of SLP(Crl) No 4279 of 2020]
Dr A R Vijayakumar Ilango .... Appellant(s)
Versus
V A Rajendran & Ors ....Respondent(s)
ORDER
1 Leave granted.
2 This appeal arises from a judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court of
Judicature at Madras dated 28 August 2020.
3 On 19 July 2019, a First Information Report1 was registered for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 2 against the appellant at the behest of his 90 year old father. The allegations in the FIR pertained to the appellant having appropriated a sum of Rupees one crore from the sale proceeds of a house property and having fraudulently induced the complainant into selling the property whereas he intended to sell only half of the property. The appellant applied for anticipatory bail. By an order dated 9 Signature Not Verified August 2019, the High Court granted anticipatory bail, subject to the appellant Digitally signed by Sanjay Kumar paying Rupees fifty lakhs to the father and another amount of Rupees fifty lakhs Date: 2021.10.20 17:28:21 IST Reason: to his mother. A Special Leave Petition against the judgment of the High Court 1 FIR No 217 of 2019 2“IPC” 2 was dismissed by this Court on 21 October 2019, but, on the request of the appellant, time for compliance with the order of the High Court was extended by a period of eight weeks. Subsequently, on 13 December 2019, this Court extended the time for compliance by a further period of six weeks. An application was filed before the High Court for cancellation of the order granting anticipatory bail on the ground that the appellant had failed to comply with the direction to deposit. The High Court extended the time to pay until 31 July 2020. Thereafter, despite a further extension of time until 7 August 2020, no compliance was effected by the appellant. As a result, the grant of anticipatory bail was cancelled by the impugned order of the High court dated 28 August 2020. On 21 September 2020, the following order was passed by this Court:
“1 Mr. K.N. Basha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that out of the amount of Rupees one crore as directed by the High Court to be paid, the petitioner has deposited Rupees fifty lacs in the account of his mother. As regards the balance of Rupees fifty lacs, he states that the petitioner would be in a position to deposit Rupees twenty five lacs in terms of the order of the High Court within a period of four weeks from today.
2 We extend time for compliance with the direction by a period of four weeks in view of the statement which has been made by the learned senior counsel.
3 Mr. Basha, learned senior counsel submits that the dispute in the present case is essentially a family dispute and if an effort is made to mediate, in all probability, it would be resolved.
4 Issue notice returnable within six weeks.
5 Liberty to implead Mr. Rose Kumar, the younger brother of the petitioner. The notice shall also issue to the newly impleaded respondent.
6 Conditional on compliance with the above directions in regard to the payment of the amount of Rupees twenty five lacs within four weeks, there shall be a stay of the impugned order of the High Court cancelling the grant of anticipatory bail, till the next date of listing. 7 Parties shall in the meantime furnish instructions to their 3 respective counsel as to whether they are ready and willing to proceed to mediation.” 4 In pursuance of order issuing notice, appearance has been filed on behalf of the first respondent as well as the State. The younger brother of the appellant who was impleaded as a party to these proceedings has, in a counter affidavit, stated that the appellant only deposited an amount of Rupees fifty lakhs into his mother’s account since she is staying with him, but, did not comply with the order of deposit to the account of the father in spite of multiple extensions. 5 In the pleadings of the Special Leave Petition, the appellant has stated that while he has deposited an amount of Rupees fifty lakhs to the credit of his mother, he may be permitted to deposit the balance of Rupees fifty lakhs in the Court of the Magistrate in connection with Crime No 216 of 2009 and the amount may be held in deposit, subject to such directions as may be issued. 6 During the pendency of the proceedings, the 90 year old father of the appellant and the third respondent has died. That cannot be a reason to exempt the appellant from complying with the terms of the previous orders of the High Court and this Court.
7 We are clearly of the view that the appellant must, in the circumstances, comply with the order for the deposit of the balance amount of Rupees fifty lakhs by depositing the same in the Court of the Magistrate in connection with Crime No 216 of 2009. Upon deposit, the amount shall be invested in an interest bearing fixed deposit of a nationalized bank to abide by such final directions as may be issued by the competent court. The aforesaid amount shall be deposited within a period of four weeks, conditional upon which the impugned order of the High Court cancelling the grant of anticipatory bail shall stand set aside. In the event that the appellant fails to comply with the direction issued in the present order, the cancellation of the anticipatory bail shall stand. The appeal is disposed of in 4 the above terms.
8 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
…………...…...….......………………........J. [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud] …..…..…....…........……………….…........J. [B V Nagarathna] New Delhi;
October 08, 2021
-S-
5
ITEM NO.35 Court 4 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).4279/2020
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-08-2020 in CRLOP No. 10886/2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras) DR. A.R. VIJAYAKUMAR ILANGO Petitioner(s) VERSUS V.A. RAJENDRAN & ORS. Respondent(s) (WITH IA No. 89405/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 08-10-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR
Mr. Elavarasan, Adv.
Mr. B. Karunakaran, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, AOR
Ms. Mrinal Kanwar, Adv.
Ms. Sonakshi Malhan, Adv.
Mr. Sajal Jain, Adv.
Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AoR.
Ms. Preeti Singh, Adv.
Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 Leave granted.
2 The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order. 3 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)