← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/602/2019closed

Dr.J.Abhinav, v. The Inspector Of Police,

2019-02-01Honourable Mr Justice M. Nirmal Kumar2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the First day of February Two Thousand Nineteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP(MD) No.602 of 2019

1. J.ABHINAV,

2. S.JEYAMANUVEL,

3. JACKULINE JEYAMANUVEL,

4. MANJO JOHN PAUL,

5. RESHMA ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR, THANJAVUR DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT HEPSHIBA MERLIN ... INTERVENOR/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : Mr.R.RAJARAMAN, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : Mr.B.JAMEEL ARASU, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 406 I.P.C and Section 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No.Not known of 2019, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant had left two mobile phones in her matrimonial home. The fear of the defacto complainant is that the pictures, which were available in the mobile phone were misused by the petitioners to defame and to make claim against the defacto complainant.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the mobile phone taken by the petitioners will be handed over to the defacto complainant as in the same condition. Further undertakes that based on the pictures available in the phone, the petitioners would not make any claim.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The defacto complainant agreed for the same and undertakes that she would not make any counter claim in whatsoever manner, undertakes to amicably resolve the dispute by filing necessary petitions/applications to have separation and to nullifying the marriage.

5.There is no claim between both the parties. The defacto complainant is also agreed for the same and now assured that she will not make any claim against the petitioners. Both the petitioners and the defacto complainant shall not in any manner act against each other that would injure, damage and defame them. 6.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the enquiry has been conducted and the same has been closed. 7.In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

sd/- 01/02/2019 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

2. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+2. CC to Mr.R.RAJARAMAN Advocate SR.Nos.2093,2303

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.602 of 2019 Date :01/02/2019 MS/VR/SAR-3/20.02.2019/2P.5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/