Mohammed Jinose v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Eleventh day of March Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH CRL OP(MD) No.13679 of 2014 1 MOHAMMED JINOSE 2 P.JALALUDEEN 3 NABEESATH ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, MARTHANDAM, KANYAKUMARI DIST, CR.NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2014 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.S.RAMAKRISHNAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police in Crime No.not known of 2014, on the file of the respondent police for offences under Sections 323, 341, 352, 403, 420, 498(A), 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, the petitioners are now before this Court seeking Anticipatory Bail.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent. 3.On 25.07.2014, this Court granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners and referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Today, a report dated 17.02.2015 has been received from the Mediation Centre, in which, it is stated that the parties have arrived at a settlement. The original of the settlement agreement has been sent to this Court and the following settlement has been arrived at between the parties: "1.Two house sites free from encumbrance and relevant documents returned back to the de-facto complainant on 20.10.2014. 2.The household articles returned back on 30.10.2014 to the defacto complainant. 3.Now today, 19.12.2014, the agreed amount of three lakhs rupees and 70 sovereigns of gold ornaments returned after duly https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
weighed and verified by the appraiser brought by the de-facto complainant to their full satisfaction.
Parties agreed to withdraw the civil and criminal proceedings pending between them. Both parties agreed to have mutual consent divorce through appropriate Court. Both parties agreed not to have any claim in future. Mediation succeeded."
5. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), on instructions from the respondent police, submits that the petition enquiry has been conducted and closed. Under such circumstances, this petition is closed. The settlement agreement shall form part of the order.
sd/- 11/03/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, KUZHITHURAI, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KANYAKUMARI AT NAGERCOIL.
3 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, MARTHANDAM, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.
+1. CC to M/S.S.RAMAKRISHNAN Advocate SR.No.11617
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.13679 of 2014 Date :11/03/2015 AA/12.03.2015/2p- 6c/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/