Rajkumar v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Thirty First day of January Two Thousand Nineteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP(MD) No.20329 of 2018 1 RAJKUMAR 2 KRISHNAN 3 PITCHAIYAMMAL 4 SAMIDURAI 5 PANDI 6 PARAMASIVAM ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO.1 TO 6 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, ARUPPUKOTTAI, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.
(IN CRIME NO. 14 OF 2018) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : Mr.A.BASKARAN Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervener : Mr.B.RAMANATHAN,Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 406 & 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in Cr.No.14 of 2018, seek anticipatory bail.
2. Now, the de facto complainant /victim is present before this Court. On 26.01.2019, she had visited the house of the first petitioner and saw the arrangements made by him for setting up of separate portion for their living and since she was not satisfied with the same, she came back within three hours from his house. Thereafter, the respondent police along with the de facto complainant had gone to the house of the first petitioner to verify the details furnished pertaining to the amenities at his house and now, the de facto complainant states that she is having an infant girl child and hence, she wants to live together with her husband. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
3. The first petitioner and his family members, who are the
other petitioners herein in this petition, are willing to reconsider the differences and take her as their daughter-in-law and live peacefully. Further, they also undertook that H.M.O.P.No.938 of 2018 which was filed by the first petitioner pending before the Family Court, Madurai would be withdrawn and the maintenance petition filed by the de facto complainant in M.C.No.129 of 2018 before the Family Court, Madurai will be withdrawn, in view of her joining the first petitioner to live together alongwith the other petitioners and they are also agreeable of taking her as their daughter-in-law of their family. The amenities provided is to the satisfaction of the de facto complainant. Further, the petitioner submits that the amenities could be improved as and when such facility is available to them. Further, the petitioners would submit that there is no difference shown in the amenities available with the daughter-in-law and there is no discrimination or parity in providing the same.
4. Recording the same, since the de facto complainant has agreed to live together with the petitioner and his family members, the family court petitions filed by the petitioner and the de facto complainant in H.M.O.P.No. 138 of 2018 and H.M.O.P.No.938 of 2018 & M.C.No/129 of 2018 respectively shall now become infructuous.
5. In view of the same, the petitioner and the de facto complainant undertakes to withdraw the complaint given before the respondent police. Recording the same, the respondent police is directed to close the case registered in Crime No.14 of 2018. It is also made clear that is there is any violation by any of the parties in the above presumption, it is open for them to approach the appropriate forum. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petitions stands closed.
sd/- 31/01/2019 / 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, ARUPPUKOTTAI, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.
2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to Mr.B.RAMANATHAN Advocate SR.No.2177 PS/VR/SAR-4/20.02.2019/2P/4C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.20329 of 2018 Date :31/01/2019 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/