Alleging that they have filed false vakalatnama, the respondent State raised objection for maintainability of the petition.
The third appellant is the husband of the first appellant.
Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the Registrar Judicial lodged a companyplaint 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.
OP MD No.15370 of 2016 filed by the appellants.
O.P. MD No.15370/2016.
The first appellant denied all the allegations and claimed that the same was result of political vendetta against her.
The appellants filed bail application under Section 438 Cr.
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.
Accordingly, the appellants appeared before the companyrt on the said date and submitted their affidavit before the High Court stating that the date mentioned in the vakalatnama was an inadvertent mistake.
The third appellant left for Singapore from Bengaluru on 18.08.2016.
On the above findings, the High Court directed the Registrar Judicial to lodge the companyplaint against the appellants with the jurisdictional police station.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Based on the companyplaint 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.
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.
Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed these appeals.
Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the Registrar Judicial lodged a companyplaint with K. Pudur Police Station, Madurai on 19.09.2016.
The High Court of Delhi directed that numbercoercive 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.
P.C. in Crl.
By the same judgment, the learned Single Judge of the High Court directed the Registrar Judicial to lodge a companyplaint with the jurisdictional police station against the appellants with respect to the alleged forgery companymitted by them in signing the vakalatnama.
Nos.7252, 7287 and 8206 of Digitally signed by 2016 arise out of the judgment dated 14.09.2016 passed by the MAHABIR SINGH Date 2019.05.07 151346 IST Reason Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissing anticipatory bail application in Crl.
Based on the companyplaint 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.
In the impugned judgment, the High Court held that the explanations given by the appellants are number satisfactory and the same is companytradictory to the written version as companytained in the vakalatnama.
A companyplaint 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.
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.
Similarly, appellant No.3 had left for Singapore from Bengaluru on 18.08.2016 at 09.30 AM.
Appellant No.1 filed anticipatory bail application No.1627/2016 before the High Court of Delhi.
In the said application, preliminary objection was raised by the State alleging that the appellants have played fraud on the companyrt 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.
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.
Based on the said companyplaint, a criminal case was registered against all the appellants in Crime No.5/2016 in All Womens Police Station under Sections 294 b , 323, 344, 354 A and 506 i IPC and under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
The first appellant was the then Member of Rajya Sabha and expelled Member of AIADMK Political Party.
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 companyrt of companypetent jurisdiction in the State of Tamil Nadu or the High Court of Madras.
Signature Not Verified These appeals SLP Crl.
The first appellant left for Singapore from New Delhi on 17.08.2016.
The High Court vide order dated 23.08.2016 directed the appellants to appear before the companyrt on 29.08.2016 and to give their explanation with regard to the said preliminary objection.
While filing bail application in Crl.
By the order dated 26.09.2016, the Supreme Court directed that numbercoercive 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.
