“Intention To Cheat Damsel Already In Distress”: Madras High Court Refuses Bail To Producer Accused In Property Fraud By Actress Gautami

The Madras High Court recently refused to grant anticipatory bail to producer Alagappan and his family in a cheating case registered by Actress Gauthami. Noting that there was prima facie material, Justice CV Karthikeyan observed that the facts not only revealed cheating but also misappropriation and siphoning of funds for personal gains. The court also remarked that Alagappan and his family intended to cheat a damsel, already in distress who was trying to provide security for her daughter. “Intention to cheat had been nurtured from embryo and put to devastating effect on a damsel, already in distress, afflicted with a debilitating disease, who just wanted to provide security for her young daughter. The facts reveal not only cheating but also misappropriation and siphoning of funds for the personal gain of the accused persons in both the cases registered by the two separate Investigating Agencies,” the court observed. It was alleged by the prosecution that Alagappan, who was a film producer and distributor acquainted himself with the actress when she was inflicted with an agonizing disease and gained her confidence on the premise of helping her to sell her properties. It was alleged that Alagappan later misused the power of attorney and purchased property in the joint names of his wife and in the name of the actress. Gauthami had thus alleged that Alagappan and his family members had misappropriated over 25 crores. Thus, based on two complaints by Gauthami, cases were registered by District Crime Branch, Tiruvannamalai District and Central Crime Branch, Vepery for cheating under Sections 420, 506(i) read with Section 120(B) and 34 of IPC. While seeking bail, Alagappan submitted that he was requested by Gauthami to deal with her properties and he had acted with utmost faith and maintained accounts of sale proceeds and submitted them to Gauthami. It was submitted that the present complaints were false and filed after Alagappan demanded payment of Rs. 2.1 crore which Gauthami was to pay him. The prosecution challenged the granting of bail by submitting that none of the accused had approached the Investigating Officer to cooperate with the investigation. It was submitted that the documents examined revealed that there was a power of attorney granted in favour of Alagappan and that properties had been purchased without Gauthami's knowledge. The prosecution submitted that further investigation had to be done and requisitions had been given to Sub-Registrars in Neelankarai and Zonal Officer, Sholinganallur and the Tashildar, Sholinganallur, seeking further documents. The prosecution further submitted that though court had given interim protection to one of the accused considering that she had a young child, even though she had not appeared for investigation. Further, though notices were sent to the accused, their house was found locked. The prosecution also informed the court that though a special team had been set up to secure the accused, the accused kept moving from place to place and refused to cooperate. Looking into the documents, the court was satisfied that the accused had conspired to cheat Gauthami of her money and property while she was fighting cancer in the hope that she would not survive. Calling it “ingratitude”, the court noted that there was dishonest intention written in every act of the accused to deceive the defacto complainant. “There could be no better example of betrayal of trust. It also signifies ingratitude. It does give a hoary feeling at the thought of the accused persons conspiring among themselves and rejoicing at the possibility of the defacto complainant falling to the disease which had afflicted to her and rubbing their hands in glee that properties for which they had not paid any consideration would flow to them in that eventuality,” the court noted. Thus, considering the Investigating Officer's submission that the investigation was at a crucial stage, the court opined to dismiss the petitions. Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Ranjith Marar For Mr. G. Sriram Counsel for Intervener: Mr. John Sathyan, Senior Counsel, For Mr. S. Namasivayan Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. R. Vinothraja, Government Advocate Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 399 Case Title: C Alagappan v The State Case No: Crl.O.P.Nos.22333 & 24313 of 2023Click here to read/download the judgment

“Intention To Cheat Damsel Already In Distress”: Madras High Court Refuses Bail To Producer Accused In Property Fraud By Actress Gautami

Upasana Sajeev

Tags