Kanagalingam 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.13620 of 2017 1 KANAGALINGAM 2 KRISHNAN 3 JANAKI 4 MURUGESHWARI 5 SELVAPRIYA ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED Nos.1 to 5 Vs State represented by THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PARAMAKUDI, RAMNAD DISTRICT.

CR.NO.NOT KNOWN/2017 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : M/S.V.MUTHUSAMUNDEESWARAN Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.Anbarasan,Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 5, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 294(b), 498(A) and 506(ii) of IPC., and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No.Not Known of 2017, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the defacto complainant and the first petitioner was solemnized in the year 2017.

Out of the wedlock, they have one female child and since she got female child, the first petitioner and his family members started harassing her by stating that they are going to arrange the second marriage to her husband, if she is not ready to give Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry and gave a life threat to her. 3.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. According to them, since the family members of the first petitioner denied the partition of their family properties, the defacto complainant made allegations against the petitioners and lodged a false complaint against them. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.

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 work out the remedy 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, PARAMAKUDI, RAMNAD DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.13620 of 2017 Date :09/10/2017 SM:PM-PN:SAR 3:12.10.2017:2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/