None. This order merely closes a Criminal Bail Petition as the quashing of the FIR in the same proceedings had already been granted by the Court earlier on the same day, leaving no pending criminal matter for the bail petition. The compromise memo was noted to form part of the record.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Monday, the Twenty Ninth day of August Two Thousand Sixteen
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI
CRL OP(MD) No.23679 of 2015
1 S. RAMALINGA SIVA
2 S. SIVANESAN 3 S. RAJALAKSHMI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3
Vs
1 THE STATE REP.BY
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION,
ODDANCHATHIRAM,
PALANI TALUK, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. (CRIME NO. 26 OF 2013)
... 1ST RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
2 L. SUGUNA ... 2ND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT
FOR PETITIONER : M/S.AL.KANNAN, ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENT : GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE(CRL. SIDE) FOR R1 FOR RESPONDENT : MR.D.VENKATESH ADVOCATE FOR R2
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioners and the de-facto complainant and her father are present before this Court. The petitioners handed over four Demand Drafts, bearing Nos.607319 to 607322, dated 30.07.2016, each for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- [totally Rs.20,00,000/-], drawn on State Bank of India, Palani Branch, in favour of L.Sugana, the second respondent herein and two sovereigns of gold chain and one sovereign of gold ring to the de-facto complainant/second respondent and her father and also the R.C. Book in respect of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN38-AZ-8735 [Maruti Alto Car]. The second respondent and her father have also received the same.
the matter amicably and further, H.M.O.P.No.22 of 2016 filed by the parties for divorce is posted to 01.09.2016, for judgment. Learned counsel for the de-facto complainant submitted that M.C.No.7 of 2013 filed by her was dismissed as withdrawn.
/ TRUE COPY /
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO
ORDER
IN
CRL OP(MD) No.23679 of 2015 Date :29/08/2016
SMN2
TE/PV/SAR-I : 02/09/2016 : 2P/7C Encl.: Xerox copy of Compromise Memo
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an anticipatory bail petition requires an order when the quashing of the FIR in the same matter has already been ordered on the same day.
S. RAMALINGA SIVA
S. SIVANESAN
S. RAJALAKSHMI
THE STATE
L. SUGUNA
V.M.VELUMANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
