Mathivanan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Second day of July Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.12535 of 2016 MATHIVANAN ... PETITIONER / 1st ACCUSED Vs The State rep.by THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO. 15 OF 2016) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S V.MAHENDRAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.P.Kannithevan Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No.1, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 495, 294(b), 323, 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.15 of 2016, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that A.1 and defacto complainant loved each other and A.1 married the defacto complainant on 09.04.2011. After marriage, on the demand of A.

1 and other accused, the parents of the defacto complainant gave 20 sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.3,00,000/- and household articles to A.1. Thereafter, all the accused have harassed the defacto complainant demanding more dowry and thrown out her from the matrimonial home. A.1 married one Girija secondly and due to which, the said Girija gave birth to a male child. When the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, A.1 abused her in filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences. On complaint, a case has been registered against the petitioner for the above said offences. 3.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is working as a Manager in the Muthoot Corporation Limited, Virudhunagar.

Both the petitioner and defacto complainant are close relatives and with a consent of parents of both, marriage was arranged within a short span. Due to dispute, the defacto complainant left the matrimonial https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.

home and she is not living with him. At the instigation of the parents of the defacto complainant, she left the matrimonial home and she has given a false complaint against the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that this Court by an order, dated 06.07.2016 dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner and he would further submit that the petitioner along with other accused demanded dowry and harassed the defacto complainant and the investigation is pending.

5.Considering the serious allegation made against the petitioner and also considering the fact that there is no change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 22/07/2016 / 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, VIRUDHUNAGAR, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

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

sm:GSV-PM:SAR I:28.07.2016:2P/3C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.12535 of 2016 Date :22/07/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/