Chinna Mariappan v. The Inspector of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 28/07/2023 PRESENT The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN

1.Chinna Mariappan

2.Latha ... Petitioners/Accused Rank

Not Known

Vs The State, represented by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Rajapalayam District. Crime No.Not Known of 2023. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.G.KARUPPASAMY PANDIYAN.

Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.R.SURESH KUMAR, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.Not Known/2023 on the file of the Respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused Rank Not Known, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 506(i) I.P.C., in Crime No.Not Known of 2023 on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant married the son of the petitioners. At that time of marriage, ten sovereigns of gold jewels were presented by the parents of the defacto complainant as dowry. After marriage, under the guise of doing business, the son of the petitioners received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the defacto complainant. The husband of the defacto complainant has regularly consumed liquor and harassed the petitioner. Hence, the complaint seeking return of jewels and amount.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is the issue between the husband and wife, there is no allegation made against these petitioners.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent Police submitted that only the petition enquiry is pending. On the basis of the complaint given by the defacto complainant namely wife, enquiry was undertaken. During the course of enquiry, there was understanding reached between the parties, by which, the son of the petitioners undertook to return the jewels and other articles to the defacto complainant. On the basis of above said undertaken, the above said complaint was closed on 21.05.2022. After the above said closure, because of non-compliance of the condition that is the undertaken given by the husbnad, the complainant again appeared before the respondent and made oral complaint. On that basis, this petitioners, who are in-laws of the defacto complainant, have been called for enquiry.

¶5These petitioners seem to be the parents of the defacto complainant's husband and they are no way involved in the above said undertaking. The defacto complainant shall give a fresh complaint against her husband namely Kalidass and the same may be enquired by the respondent Police.

¶6With the above said directions, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.

sd/-

28/07/2023

/ TRUE COPY /

/08/2023

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai - 625 023. INDU TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, RAJAPALAYAM DISTRICT. 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13792 of 2023 Date :28/07/2023 SA/SA/SAR. /04.08.2023/4P/3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023.