Actress Gauthami filed a cheating case against producer Alagappan and his family, seeking anticipatory bail from the Madras High Court, which was ultimately denied.

The single-headed bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan highlighted prima facie evidence suggesting not only cheating but also misappropriation and diversion of funds for personal benefit.

Further, the bench emphasized that Alagappan and his family members allegedly intended to deceive someone already facing difficulties, aiming to take advantage of a distressed individual striving to secure her daughter's safety.

The prosecution alleged that Alagappan, a film producer and distributor, established a relationship with the actress during her difficult battle with a debilitating illness. Allegedly, he gained her trust by offering assistance in selling her properties. Subsequently, it was claimed that Alagappan abused the power of attorney granted to him and acquired property jointly in his wife's name and in the actress's name. Gauthami accused Alagappan and his family of misappropriating an amount exceeding Rs. 25 crore.

Consequently, following two complaints lodged by Gauthami, the District Crime Branch in Tiruvannamalai District and the Central Crime Branch in Vepery registered cases for cheating under Sections 420, 506(i), along with Sections 120(B), and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

In his plea for bail, Alagappan asserted that Gauthami had personally requested Gauthami to deal with her properties, and he had acted with the utmost faith. He claimed to have maintained detailed records of the sales and had dutifully presented them to Gauthami. Alagappan further argued that the current allegations against him were fabricated and emerged only after he demanded a payment of Rs. 2.1 crore that Gauthami owed him.

The prosecution opposed the bail grant by highlighting that none of the accused had actively engaged with the Investigating Officer to assist in the ongoing investigation. They presented documents indicating the existence of a power of attorney in Alagappan's favor, suggesting property acquisitions made without Gauthami's awareness. Additionally, they emphasized the necessity for further inquiry, citing requisitions made to Sub-Registrars in Neelankarai, the Zonal Officer in Sholinganallur, and the Tashildar in Sholinganallur to obtain additional documents. This indicated a need for thorough investigation before bail could be considered.

The prosecution highlighted that despite the court granting interim protection to one of the accused due to having a young child, she did not participate in the investigation. Additionally, notices sent to the accused remained unanswered as their residence was found locked. The prosecution also informed the court about the challenges faced in securing the accused, mentioning that despite efforts by a dedicated team, the accused continuously relocated and showed reluctance to cooperate with the authorities.

After examining the documents, the court concluded 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. Terming this behavior as "ingratitude," the court observed a consistent pattern of deceitful intent in every action undertaken by the accused against the complainant, highlighting their dishonest intentions.

Based on the investigating officer's assertion that the investigation was at a critical juncture, the court decided to reject or dismiss the petitions before it.

Mr. Ranjith Marar represented Mr. G. Sriram as counsel for the petitioners, while Mr. R. Vinothraja, Government Advocate, served as counsel for the respondents.