Disposed

V.Vengada Subramaniam, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC4 Jun 2013CRL OP(MD)/2705/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court refused the petitioners' plea for anticipatory bail citing no chance of settlement via mediation. Instead, it directed the respondent police to refrain from harassing the petitioners under the guise of a petitioner enquiry, following D.K.Basu.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent police not to harass the petitioners under the guise of petitioner enquiry.

V.Vengada Subramaniam, 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 Fourth day of June Two Thousand Thirteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.2705 of 2013

¶6

1 V.VENGADA SUBRAMANIAM

¶7

2 V.SUSILA 3 V.BAKIA LAKSHMI : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN

¶8

THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, ANDIPATTI, THENI DISTRICT. (CR.NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2013) : RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶9

For Petitioner : M/S. T.LAJAPATHI ROY Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : M/S. K.SAMIDURAI Advocate

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶12

The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498(A) of I.P.C., and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in Crime No.Not known of 2013 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

¶13

2.Mediation report is yet to be received but both the counsel appearing for the de-facto complainant and the petitioners would submit that there is no chance for settlement.

¶14

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the de-facto complainant only petition enquiry is pending.

¶15

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

¶16

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 .

¶17

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

¶18

Sd/04/06/2013

¶19

/ TRUE COPY /

¶20

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO

¶21

1 THE CO-ORDINATOR, MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT MADURAI

¶22

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

¶23

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, ANDIPATTI, THENI DISTRICT.

¶24

+1. CC to M/S. K.SAMIDURAI Advocate SR.No.29092

¶25

ORDER

¶26

¶27

CRL OP(MD) No.2705 of 2013 Date :04/06/2013 NSV/5.6.13/2P/5C

¶28

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

V.Vengada Subramaniam, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Vengada Subramaniam, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.R. Mohanram Vs the Commissioner of Police

S.M.Muthupandi Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Varadharajan @ Kannan Vs the Inspector of Police

Arichandran Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

G. Viji Vs the Superintendent of Police

Manihandan, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police