Shiva Anand v. The State Rep By Its,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-04-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL OP NO. 27364 of 2024 AND CRL MP NO. 15649 OF 2024
1. Shiva Anand 2.Renuka 3.Saravanan 4.Ramya CR.NO.7 OF 2024.
Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By Its, Inspector of Police R-9, All Women Police Station, Valasaravakkam, Chennai.
...Respondent(s)
CRL MP NO. 15649 of 2024 B.Shwetha .. Appellant(s) vs.
1.Shiva Ananad 2.Renuka 3.Saravanan 4.Ramya 5.Inspector of Police R-9, All Women Police Station, Valasaravakkam, Chennai. ......Respondent(s) Page No.1 of 15
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.S.Vellidoss For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Balaji Government Advocate (Crl.Side) CRL MP NO. 15649 of 2024 For Intervenor:
M/s.R.Sripriya
ORDER
The petitioners, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 342, 406, 498-A and 506 (i) of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002 in Crime No.7 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The petitioners are the husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and brother-in-law's wife of the defacto complainant. 3.The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioners had caused cruelty to the defacto complainant on account of dowry demand; that the first petitioner had pledged all the sreedhana jewels without her knowledge. Hence, the complaint.
Page No.2 of 15
4. When the matter was listed earlier, the parties were referred to mediation. It is now reported that both the parties have arrived at a compromise and have reduced the terms of compromise into writing. The scanned copy of the settlement agreement dated 17.03.2025 entered into between them is, as follows:
Page No.3 of 15
Page No.4 of 15
Page No.5 of 15
Page No.6 of 15
Page No.7 of 15
Page No.8 of 15
Page No.9 of 15
Page No.10 of 15
5. Learned counsel for the intervenor/defacto complainant would submit that the 4th petitioner has not signed the agreement and hence, if she later disputes the settlement of agreement, the defacto complainant would be put to irreparable loss.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the terms of settlement would make it clear that the terms of settlement would not be affected merely because the 4th petitioner had not signed the agreement. He further submitted that the 4th petitioner is the Sister in law of the first accused and because of this case, she and her husband are not in good terms. He further submitted that the petitioners had handed over two cheques bearing Nos.008705 and 008706 as security for fulfilling the conditions stipulated in Clause 6 (B)(iv) of the settlement agreement.
7. According to the terms of agreement, the petitioners shall hand over the jewels of 59 sovereigns of gold and a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- as monetary compensation to the defacto complainant, within a period of six months and also to register a property situated in Kanchipuram District in favour of the Page No.11 of 15
defacto complainant within a period of three(3) months from the date of execution of this settlement agreement.
8. This Court also finds that the fact the fourth petitioner had not signed the settlement agreement would not affects the terms of settlement as the other petitioners are bound by the settlement agreement. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.
9. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Poonamallee on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that: [a] the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their Page No.12 of 15
photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.
[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police, everyday at 10:30 a.m., until further orders; [c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].
[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.
10. Post the matter after three months for reporting compliance and CRL MP NO. 15649 OF 2024 is ordered as prayed for. If the petitioners fails to comply any of the conditions, it is needless to say that the defacto Page No.13 of 15
complainant is entitled to file cancellation of bail petition. 02-04-2025 msv To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Poonamallee
2. The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Valasaravakkam, Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
SUNDER MOHAN,J.
Page No.14 of 15
msv CRL OP NO. 27364 of 2024 AND CRL MP NO. 15649 OF 2024 02-04-2025 Page No.15 of 15