Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/6796/2017closed

V.Govindan v. The Inspector Of Police

2017-10-09Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani2 pages

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.6796 of 2017 1 V.GOVINDAN 2 JEYARATHI ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs THE STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL, DINDIGUL DISTRICT CRIME NO. NOT KNOWN OF 2017 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : M/S.H.ARUMUGAM Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.ANBARASAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervener : MR.KARTHIKEYA VENKATACHALAPATHY Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 498 (A) of IPC, 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 2016 as per Hindu rites and customs. By medical check-up, they came to know that due to cysts around the uterus, the defacto complainant is not having child and the petitioners also agreed to take medical treatment to rectify the defects and the first petitioner/husband agreed to compete the medical expenses for her. But the defacto complainant immediately wanted to go to her parental home, at that time the first petitioner told her that he would make tickets and both of them could go to her parental home, but the defacto complainant adamantly refused and try to attempt suicide on that day. Hence, the complaint.

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, the family members of the defacto complainant lodged a false compliant against the petitioners https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

and the petitioners are ready to give treatment to the defacto complainant. While the facts are being so, the family members of the defacto complainant made allegations against the petitioners and lodged a false complaint against them.

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

+1cc to M/s.H.ARUMUGAM, Advocate, in SR No.82085

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.6796 of 2017 Date :09/10/2017 MKV-CM-MSA-SAR 4/12.10.2017/2P-4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/