Gurusamy v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 13/09/2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN CRL OP(MD). Nos.13430 and 15249 of 2023 CRL OP(MD). No.13430 of 2023 1.Gurusamy 2.Jothi @ Vishwajothi 3.Sobiya ... Petitioners /Accused Nos.2 to 4 Vs 1.The state represented by The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station, Dindigul District, in Crime No.366 of 2023.

... Respondent/Complainant (*)2.Sahana 3.Kaleeswaran ... Respondents 2 & 3 (*)(R2 and R3 are Suo-Motu impleaded as per order of this Hon'ble Court in CRL OP(MD).13430/2023 dated 24/07/2023) For Petitioners :

Mr.C.Suresh Kannan, Advocate.

For R1 :

Mr.S.Manikandan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 :

Mr.T.Lenin Kumar, Advocate CRL OP(MD). No.15249 of 2023 Kaleeswaran ... Petitioners/Accused No.1 Vs 1/4

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station, Dindigul District, Crime No.366 of 2023.

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner :

Mr.C.Suresh Kannan, Advocate.

For Respondent :

Mr.S.Manikandan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITIONS FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C COMMON PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 366 of 2023 on the file of the respondent Police.

COMMON ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/ Accused apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.366 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and the first petitioner are husband and wife. There arose some dispute between them stating that the first accused is not working in the State or Central Government. They got separated and the accused nos.2 to 4 alleged to have demanded dowry from the defacto complainant. On 25.04.2023, the accused persons went to the defacto complainant's wife to see the child. At that time a wordy quarrel arose between both the families. Hence the complaint.

2/4

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent, they have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

4.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the matter was already referred to mediation. Eventhough, a report has been received, it has been stated that the respondent is not ready for compromise. 5.Learned counsel on both sides stated that the defacto complainant and the first accused have decided to live together.

6.The statement is placed on record. In view of the development, the matter has become infructuous. Let the parties appear before the respondent police and give statement with regard to the compromise arrived between them, so that the respondent may close the FIR.

7. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed as infructuous. sd/- 13/09/2023 / TRUE COPY / /10/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

pnn 3/4

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DINDIGUL TALUK POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

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

+1 CC to M/s.C.SURESH KANNAN, Advocate ( SR-13599[I] dated 13/09/2023 ) +1 CC to M/s.T.LENIN KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-13681[I] dated 14/09/2023 )

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD). Nos.13430 and 15249 of 2023 Date :13/09/2023 RS/JGB/SAR-(11.10.2023) 4P 5C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4