Dismissed

Kannan, S/O.Mookiah, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC10 Oct 2017CRL OP(MD)/11598/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This short order dismissed a writ petition seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for alleged offences under the Prohibition of Children Marriage Act. The petitioners, parents of two wards, were accused of bigamy while the girl was a minor, following a false complaint to the child helpline. The court released the petitioners on bail pending the girl's majority.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail pending the girl's majority, subject to bond and appearance conditions; petition dismissed if they fail to appear within 15 days.

Kannan, S/O.Mookiah, Vs the Inspector of Police — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

Tuesday, the Tenth day of October Two Thousand Seventeen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice J.NISHA BANU

¶6

CRL OP(MD) No.11598 of 2017

¶7

1 KANNAN

¶8

2 SUNDARAMMAL

¶9

3 MURUGAN @ ANNA IRULAPPAN

¶10

4 DURGAIAMMAL ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos.2to5

¶11

THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, VILATHIKULAM, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT (In Crime No.5 OF 2017) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT

¶12

For Petitioner : M/S.M.JERIN MATHEW Advocate

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.A.RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶16

The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused in Crime No.05 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Children Marriage Act, 2006 and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

¶17

The short facts of the case is that the petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents of one Muthuraj and the petitioners 3 and 4 are the parents of one Ms.Ajithra. Both the parents were interested in giving marriage of their wards and accordingly, betrothal were taken place in the year 2015 and it was decided to wait till the girl attains majority. While so, some miscreants who were not interested in the marriage for several reasons had made a complaint to the child helpline and on the basis of the complaint given by the extension officer, who is attached with the child helpline, an First Information Report came to be registered against the petitioners and therefore, the present petition is preferred seeking the afore-said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ relief.

¶18

¶19

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that when the parents of both sides were ready to wait till the girl attains majority for getting married, a false complainant came to be lodged with an ulterior motive by some miscreants and hence, he prays for appropriate orders.

¶20

4.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that on the basis of a compliant to the child helpline, a case came to be registered against the petitioners.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

¶22

Considering the submissions of both parties and the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that only betrothal had taken place between the parties, all the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam and on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two common sureties in which one for the petitioners 1 and 2 and another is for the petitioners 3 and 4 each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police, as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners shall also comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.

¶23

The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

sd/-

10/10/2017

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶28

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶29

Madurai - 625 023.

¶30

¶31

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VILATHIKULAM

¶32

2 -DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TUTICORIN DISTRICT

¶33

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, VILATHIKULAM, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT

¶35

¶36

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

¶37

+1. CC to M/S.M.JERIN MATHEW Advocate SR.No.32376

¶38

ORDER

¶39

¶40

CRL OP(MD) No.11598 of 2017

¶41

Date :10/10/2017

¶42

ssm SH/PM-PN/SAR-4:11.10.2017: 3p/6c

¶43

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

Kannan, S/O.Mookiah, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kannan, S/O.Mookiah, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Branch Manager Vs Abulnabil

Raja Vs Janakiammal

Sakthivel Vs Arunachalam

Viswanathan Chettiar Vs S.Natchammai @ Meenal

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Taj Nisha

Santhanam @ Sundaraj Vs a.P.Sanmugavel