Dismissed

Archana Padmakumar v. the State, Represented by

Madras HC5 Oct 2020CRL OP/9404/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of two common criminal petitions filed under Section 439(2) CrPC by a defacto complainant to cancel anticipatory bail granted to her husband in a matrimonial dispute. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding they were not pressed by the petitioner who was seeking divorce by mutual consent, despite the return of all jewels except one bangle.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petitions Crl.O.P.Nos.9404 and 13159 of 2020 dismissed as not pressed.

Archana Padmakumar Vs the State, Represented by — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.O.P.Nos.9404 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 05.10.2020

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶6

Crl.O.P.Nos.9404 and 13159 of 2020

¶7

Archana Padmakumar
D/o Padma kumar ... Petitioner in both the Crl.O.P's
Vs.
1. State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police
Greater Chennai, Vepery,
Chennai-600 007.
2. The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Poonamallee, Chennai-600 056.
3.Anup Mohan
S/o Mohan Kumar ... Respondents in both Crl.O.P's

¶8

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439(2) of Criminal Procedure Code to cancel the Anticipatory bail granted in favour of the third respondent in Crl.M.P.No.6254 of 2019 dated 07.12.2019 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Court, Thiruvallur.

¶9

1/4

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

Crl.O.P.Nos.9404 of 2020

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. R. Sankarasubbu For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor

¶13

C O M M O N O R D E R
(This Case has been heard through Video Conferencing)

¶14

Both the petitions arising out of a matrimonial dispute. The
petitioner/defacto complainant has filed this petition seeking
cancellation of bail, since some the jewels were not returned to her.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

¶16

petitioner is taking steps to file a petition for divorce by mutual consent before the Family Court and he would further submit that he is not pressing these petitions.

¶17

3.The learned counsel for the third respondent submits that the

¶18

husband had returned all the items except one Bangle.

¶19

2/4

¶20

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶21

Crl.O.P.Nos.9404 of 2020

¶22

Recording the submissions made by the learned counsel that

¶23

the petitioner has got all the jewels except one Bangle, these Criminal

¶24

Original Petitions are dismissed as not pressed.

¶25

05.10.2020
smn
To
1.The Inspector of Police
Greater Chennai, Vepery,
Chennai-600 007.
2. The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Poonamallee, Chennai-600 056.
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras
Chennai.

¶26

3/4

¶27

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶28

Crl.O.P.Nos.9404 of 2020

¶29

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.J

¶30

smn

¶31

Crl.O.P.Nos.9404 and 13159 of 2020
05.10.2020

¶32

4/4

¶33

http://www.judis.nic.in

Archana Padmakumar v. the State, Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Archana Padmakumar v. the State, Represented by

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

Ramakrishnan Vs State Represented by

S.Anbarasan Vs State Rep.by

Saravanan Vs the Inspector of Police

Murugan Vs the State Rep.by

Aravinth Vs the State Rep by

Balasubramaniyam Vs State Rep