Disposed

Kannan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC13 Aug 2013CRL OP(MD)/13360/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail for petitioners facing allegations of dowry harassment. Instead, the court directed the police not to harass the petitioners and to follow the principles outlined in D.K.Basu.

What did the court decide?

Order directed respondent police not to harass petitioners under guise of inquiry and to follow D.K.Basu dictum.

Kannan Vs the Inspector of Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶2

Tuesday, the Thirteenth day of August Two Thousand Thirteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.13360 of 2013

¶6

1 KANNAN

¶7

2 RAMAMOORTHY

¶8

3 VALARMATHI ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED No.1 to 3

¶9

¶10

1 THE STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, MANAMADURAI, SIVAGANGAI DT, CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2013

¶11

... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT

¶12

For Petitioner : M/S.N.SATHISH BABU Advocate

¶13

For Respondent : MR.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶14

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

¶15

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶16

The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 498(A) I.P.C., and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the State.

¶18

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, no case has been registered against the petitioners, only petition enquiry is pending.

¶19

Considering the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. However, I am inclined to give a direction to the respondent not to harass the petitioners under the guise of petition enquiry. The respondent is directed to follow the dictum laid down in D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR (1997) SC 610 .

¶20

With the above direction, this Criminal Original petition is disposed of.

¶21

sd/13/08/2013

¶22

/ TRUE COPY / https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶24

¶25

1 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶26

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶27

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶28

ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, MANAMADURAI, SIVAGANGAI DT.

¶29

+1. CC to M/S.N.SATHISH BABU Advocate SR.No.40334 AA/16.08.2013/2p -4c/

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Kannan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kannan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Dhanapal Vs the Inspector of Police

Sithan @ Sivaperumal Vs the Inspector of Police

Stalin Vs the Inspector of Police

Karthikeyan Vs the Inspector of Police

Vanumamalai Vs the Inspector of Police

K. Prabhu @ Prabakaran Vs the Deputy Superintendent of