Allowed

M.Amala v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC12 Feb 2019CRL OP/1992/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court Criminal Original Petition challenged the trial court's permit allowing an accused man in a 498A case to travel to Dubai. The Court fixed a specific return date to balance the accused's employment needs with the investigation and the petitioner's apprehension.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner-husband was directed to return to India on or before 01.08.2019 and report to police on 02.08.2019.

M.Amala Vs the Inspector of Police — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.02.2019 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.1992 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.1272 of 2019 M.Amala ...Petitioner

¶2

Vs.

¶3

1.The Inspector of Police, W-8, all Women Police Station, Thirumangalam, Chennai-600 037.

¶4

2.Saravanakumar @ Yeshwanth ...Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 09.01.2019, passed in Crl.M.P.No.4127 of 2018 in Crime No.20 of 2018 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai.

¶5

For Petitioner : Mr.E.J.Ayyappan For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1 Mr.R.Thirumoorthy for R2 ORDER

¶6

This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 09.01.2019, passed in Crl.M.P.No.4127 of 2018 in Cr.No.20 of 2018 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai. Wherein, the learned Magistrate permitted the 2^nd respondent / accused to leave from India for six months with advance notice to the respondent police with containing the place of visit and address and other details.

¶7

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the case has been registered as against the 2^nd respondent for the offences under Section 498A,313 and 494 IPC., in Crime No.20 of 2018 on the file of the 1^st respondent police. The 2^nd respondent was accordingly

¶8

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

¶9

arrested and released on bail on 06.12.2018.

¶10

3.The learned counsel would further submit that divorce proceedings is also pending in H.M.O.P.No.274 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court Poonamallee and hence the presence of the 2^nd respondent is very much required to complete the trial in the divorce petition. The learned counsel would further submit that the 2^nd respondent was not cooperating with the 1^st respondent police to complete the investigation. Only because of his absence, the entire investigation is stalled and the 1^st respondent is not able to proceed further with the investigation and could not file final report. Therefore, praying for set aside.

¶11

4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent would submit that the 2^nd respondent is the husband of the petitioner. He was arrested and subsequently released on bail. He is working in abroad as project Manager in AG Melco Elevator Co. LLC Company at Diera, Dubai, UAE. The 2^nd respondent duly obtained permission of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai and left India for his avocation, as his employer deputed him for his employment. Therefore, the trial Court considered the same and rightly allowed the petition. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of this petition.

¶12

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the case of the 2^nd respondent is pending in H.M.O.P.No.274 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court Poonamallee. This Court has already directed the 1^st respondent police to complete the investigation and file a final report within a period of two months. Investigation is still pending.

¶13

6.It is seen from the records that the Trial Court permitted the 2^nd respondent / accused to leave from India for a period of six months with advance notice to the respondent police with containing the place of visit and address and other details. Accordingly, the 2^nd respondent produced all the details before the 1^st respondent and went to Dubai for his employment. The condition imposed on the 2^nd respondent reads as follows:

¶14

(i)The petitioner is permitted to leave from India for six months with advance notice to the respondent police with containing the place of visit and address and other details

¶15

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

¶16

(ii) He shall furnish property security (Original title deed or in cash) of his own or his relatives to the value of Rs.10,00,000/-.

¶17

(iii) The petitioner is directed to report the respondent police as and when he returns from abroad.

¶18

7.It is also observed that there is no specific date mentioned in the said order for the return of the 2^nd respondent. The petitioner apprehends that the 2^nd respondent is not going to come back to India and the petitioner will be lurched.

¶19

8.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the 2^nd respondent is hereby directed to return to India on or before 01.08.2019 and report before the 1^st respondent on 02.08.2019. If the 2^nd respondent fails to report before the 1^st respondent as directed by this Court, the 1^st respondent shall take appropriate action against the 2^nd respondent in accordance with law.

¶20

9.With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. vsn/kas Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Inspector of Police, W-8, all Women Police Station, Thirumangalam, Chennai-600 037.

¶21

2.The Metropolitan Magistrate Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai.

¶22

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras,Madras. +1cc to Mr.E.J.Ayyappan, Advocate SR.No. 12194 +2cc to Mr. R.Thirumoorthy, Advocate SR.No. 12264

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.1992 of 2019

¶24

and Crl.M.P.No.1272 of 2019

¶25

A.SK(11/03/2019)

¶26

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

M.Amala v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Amala 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.M.Raj Kumar Vs T.Arunachalam

S.Ganesh Vs the State Rep by

S.Ragupathy Vs State by

Mohammed Kasim Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Rajkumar Vs the Superintendent of Police

S.Sooryarajan Vs the State, Rep by Its