Lakshmi, W/O.Moorthi, v. M. Megadharashini,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Tenth day of April Two Thousand Nineteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL MP(MD) No.2532 of 2019 IN CRL OP(MD) No.13467 of 2017 LAKSHMI, ... PETITIONER/PROPOSED RESPONDENT/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Vs 1.M. MEGADHARASHINI, ... RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, T. KALLUPATTI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to cancel the anticipatory bail order granted in Crl.OP(MD)No.13467 of 2017 dated 05.10.2017.
Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of MR.V.ILLANCHEZIAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.J.SULTHAN BASHA for M/S.AJMAL ASSOCIATES for R1 and of MR.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI, Government Advocate(Crl. Side) on behalf of the second Respondent, the court made the following order:- The petitioner/defacto complainant has filed this cancellation of anticipatory bail petition to cancel the anticipatory bail granted by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13467 of 2017 on 05.10.2017. 2.The case of the prosecution is that one of the daughter-inlaw made a complaint against another daughter-in-law stating that the petitioner along with her relatives had entered into the house of the de-facto complainant and attacked her mother-in-law.
Hence, the de-facto complainant gave a complaint before the Law Enforcing Agency. Thereafter, in order to grab the property, again the petitioner/daughter-in-law threatened the de-facto complaint and mother-in-law, taking advantage of the husband of the defacto complainant employed in abroad. Since the said complaint was not taken on file, they approached this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13164 of 2017 and based on the direction issued by this Court, F.I.R. was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.
registered.
3.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the State would submit that investigation completed and charge sheet has already been filed and there is no proof to show, as if the private respondent violated the condition imposed by this Court. 4.In view of the above, I am not inclined to allow this petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. sd/- 10/04/2019 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.I) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,PERAYUR.
2 -DO- THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI.
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE T.KALLUPATTI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.
4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. C.C. to MR.S.PRABHU, Advocate SR.No.6682
ORDER
IN CRL MP(MD) No.2532 of 2019 IN CRL OP(MD) No.13467 of 2017 Date :10/04/2019 AE/VR/SAR-I/15.04.2019/2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/