Balamurugan v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.07.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR CRL.OP(MD)No.8728 of 2017 Balamurugan ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 -vs1. The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District.

Thanjavur.

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District.

Crime No.3 of 2017.

3.The Chief Immigration Officer, Trichirappalli International Airport, Trichirappalli. ... Respondents/Complainants Prayer: This Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to issue a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to visit Singapore for his employment pending investigation in Crime.No.3 of 2017, on the file of the second respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul For Respondents : Mr.K.Anbarasan Government Advocate (Cri.Side)

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition is filed for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to visit Singapore in connection with the employment, pending investigation in Crime No.3 of 2017, on the file of the second respondent police. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents and perused the records available.

3. It appears that the petitioner has some dispute with his wife namely, Deepika. Since, the petitioner's wife gave a complaint against the petitioner and her in-laws for cruelty, a case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.3 of 2017, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

for the offence under Sections 498(A), 494 and 506(i) of IPC. In the First Information Report, the mother and the sisters of the petitioner were also arrayed as accused.

4. Though the petitioner was enquired, so far, no final report was filed and the criminal case is only at the stage of investigation. However, the first and second respondents have given written instructions to the third respondent not to permit the petitioner to go to Singapore. Based on the said instruction, the third respondent could not permit the petitioner to go to Singapore and the petitioner is also directed to approach this Court for suitable orders. Hence the present petition is filed.

5. Since the petitioner has to go abroad in relation to his employment, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that unless the respondent police give no objection, the petitioner is not likely to get the visa.

6. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) has produced a letter, dated 17.07.2017 sent by the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur, to the Chief Immigration Officer, Chennai, stating that the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner may by deleted. The legal implication of this letter is that the third respondent shall now consider the petitioner as eligible to go to abroad and issue visa to the petitioner to go to Singapore for his employment.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and recording the said letter, dated 17.07.2017, this Criminal Original Petition is closed. The said letter shall form a part of this order.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District.

3.The Chief Immigration Officer, Trichirappalli International Airport, Trichirappalli. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +One cc to Mr.A.Rahul, Advocate, SR.No.66066 das/pjl RL/6C/2P/SKN/RSK/SAR2/20/7/2017 CRL.OP(MD)No.8728 of 2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 18.07.2017