K. Marimuthu v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Nineteenth day of November Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.17954 and 17691 of 2015 1 K. MARIMUTHU 2 M. NAGALAKSHMI 3 P. SIVA ... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 IN CRL.O.P(MD)NO.17954/2015 1 K. MARIMUTHU 2 M. NAGALAKSHMI 3 P. SIVA ... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.1,2 & 4 IN CRL.O.P(MD)NO.17691/2015 Vs STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VADAMADURAI POLICE STATION, DINDUGUL DISTRICT.
(CRIME NO. 403 OF 2015 IN CRL.O.P(MD)NO.17954/2015) (CRIME NO. 407 OF 2015 IN CRL.O.P(MD)NO.17691/2015) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT IN BOTH THE PETITIONS For Petitioner : Mr.R.ALAGUMANI Advocate IN BOTH THE PETITIONS For Respondent : Mr.K.ANBARASAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) IN BOTH THE PETITIONS PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime Nos.403 and 407 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 354 and 509 IPC r/w.
4(1) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act and 66(A) of Information Technology Act and for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC respectively and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that on 06.09.2015, on the complaint given by the defacto complainant stating that on 18.08.2015 while she was sitting in street along with her friends, the petitioners took photograph of the defacto complainant on their cell phones and the same was sent by social network viz., Whatsapp to the President of Panchayat and the same was informed to the defacto complainant on 04.09.2015. On her complaint, a case has been registered in Crime Nos.403 and 407 of 2015, for the offences as stated above.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste Community viz., Arunthathiyar and he married the second
petitioner, who belongs to Backward Community. The defacto complainant also belonging to Scheduled Community viz., Hindu Pallan. Both of them belongs to different castes and hence, untouchability is in existence in nearby villages for several years. The first petitioner was ill-treated by the defacto complainant and other Community people. By not tolerating the marriage of the first petitioner with the second petitioner, the defacto complainant has given a false complaint. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case.
5.The learned Government Advocate (crl. side) has produced a Whatsapp message sent by the petitioners and the petitioners sending the message by threatening the defacto complainant and used filthy language against the defacto complainant.
6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the gravity of the offence, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed.
sd/- 19/11/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VADAMADURAI POLICE STATION, DINDUGUL DISTRICT. 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to Mr.R.ALAGUMANI Advocate SR.No.66930 +1cc to Mr.R.ALAGUMANI Advocate SR.No.66931
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.17954&17691 of 2015 Date :19/11/2015 NS/SKS-RR/SAR I/24.11.2015 : 2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/