Arumugam 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.Arumugam

2.Pathma ... Petitioners / Accused Rank Not Known

Vs The State, rep by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Mudhukulathur District. (Crime No.Not Known of 2023.) ... Respondent / Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.B.Arun, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.S.Manikandan,

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 294(b), 506

(i) I.P.C. r/w. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and 4 of Women Harassment Act, 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 petitioner married the defacto complainant five years ago and they were living in Singapore. After that the petitioner and other accused ill treated and harassed the defacto complainant demanding more dowry. The petitioner's son namely Arunkumar married another girl, when the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, she was attacked and abused by the petitioner and their familly members. Hence, the complaint.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The defacto complainant not married the petitioners' son. Actually, the defacto complainant married one Ramesh and they have two children. The defacto complainant and son of the petitioner were living relationship at Singapore. The petitioner refused the defacto complainant, when the earlier marriage of the defacto complainant came to know to him. The children of the defacto complainant are in the custody of their grand parents/petitioners.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent police submitted that only the petition enquiry is pending. During the course of enquiry, the respondent directed the petitioners to hand over the custody of the child to the defacto complainant.

¶5Since the defacto complainant already married to some other man, the respondent may close the above said complaint. The parties are directed to workout their remedy through appropriate civil process.

¶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, Mudhukulathur, Ramanathapuram District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13806 of 2023 Date :28/07/2023 ED/MR/SAR- (07/08/2023) 4P / 3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023