J. Senthurpandi v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Fourth day of December Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.22702 of 2015 J. SENTHURPANDI ... PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PARAMAKUDI, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO. 22 OF 2015) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT FOR PETITIONER : M/S K.SEEMARAJ ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : MR.K.ANBARASAN, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE ( CRL. SIDE) FOR INTERVENOR : MR.M.R.SREENIVASAN, ADVOCATE PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as sole accused, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 498(A) of IPC, in Crime No.22 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner on giving false promise of marriage had sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant. Subsequently, he took her to Thiruppur and got married on 06.07.2015. The petitioner left the defacto complainant in Thiruppur itself and promised her to inform his parents and take her to matrimonial home. Subsequently, he refused to live with her and he did not attend the phone calls made by the defacto complainant. The parents of the defacto complainant quarrelled with the parents of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner refused to live with the defacto complainant. Therefore, the defacto complainant has given a complaint and the case has been registered for the above said offences.

3.The case of the petitioner is that he is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner promised to live with the defacto complainant and sought time for convincing his parents. Before that, the defacto complainant has given a complaint.

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

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that on giving promise that the petitioner will marry the defacto complainant, the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant and got married on 06.07.2015 and subsequently he refused to live with her.

5.The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that the petitioner has already filed a Crl.O.P(MD)No.22498 of 2015 for a direction to the respondents not to harass the petitioner. 6.When the present case was taken up for hearing on 27.11.2015 the petitioner admitted his marriage with de-facto complainant and expressed his willingness to register the marriage with the defacto complainant and live with her. The learned counsel for the intervenor further submitted that on his representation, the matter was adjourned. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not willing to register the marriage and not willing to join with the defacto complainant. 7.In view of this fact, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, this petition is dismissed. sd/- 04/12/2015 / 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, PARAMAKUDI, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

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

+ 1 CC To M/S K.SEEMARAJ ADVOCATE IN SR.No. 69359 + 1 CC TO MR.M.R.SREENIVASAN, ADVOCATE IN SR NO. 69471

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.22702 of 2015 Date :04/12/2015 AM TE/AAL-MPA/SAR-I : 16/12/2015 : 2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/