Senthil Baskar v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Ninth day of October Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL OP(MD) No.12344 of 2017 SENTHIL BASKAR ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED (RANK NOT KNOWN) Vs 1 STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, NILAKOTTAI, DINDIGUL DISTRICT (CRIME NO. NOT KNOWN OF 2017) ...1st RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 2 M.CHELLAPANDI ...2nd RESPONDENT/ DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.I.JOSHUA ANANDHARAJ Advocate For Respondent : MR.ANBARASAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) FOR R1 MR.R.R.KANNAN, Advocate for R2 PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 498 (A), 406 and 506(ii) of IPC., and Sections 3 and 4 of Tamil Nadu Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No.Not Known of 2017, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the defacto complainant/2nd respondent herein and the first petitioner was solemnized on 05.06.2017. At the time of marriage, the parents of the defacto complainant had given gold jewels and household articles worth about Rs.2,00,000/- and further Rs.15,000/- as hand cash to the petitioner. Thereafter the family members of the petitioner harassed the defacto complainant by demanding additional dowry.

Hence, she gave a complaint to the law enforcing agency and based on the complaint, this case has been registered for the above said offences.

3.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. According to him, being adamant in nature, the defacto https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

complainant made frivolous allegations against the petitioner and lodged a false complaint.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that based on the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as per the direction of this Court, each and every District have formed a District Level Committee in order to settle the issues related to Section 498(A) of IPC cases. Accordingly, the case was referred to the District Level Committee for proper decision. Hence, this anticipatory bail petition is pre-matured one.

5. Recording the statement made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), this Criminal Original Petition is closed as pre-matured. However, if any adverse order passed by the District Level Committee, it is open to the petitioners to in work remedy available in the manner known to law.

sd/- 09/10/2017 / 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, NILAKOTTAI, DINDIGUL DISTRICT 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.12344 of 2017 Date :09/10/2017 SMA/PM-PN/SAR-4/13.10.2017:2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/