Disposed

R.Mariappan v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC9 Sept 2021CRL OP(MD)/10577/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought anticipatory bail for Section 498A IPC allegations arising from a matrimonial dispute. The Court referred the matter to the District Social Welfare Committee. Upon the Government Advocate's submission that the parties had compromised and further action was dropped, the petition was closed without further order.

What did the court decide?

The criminal original petition stands closed as no further order is required.

R.Mariappan Vs The Inspector of Police — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRL OP(MD)No.10577 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

(Criminal Jurisdiction)

¶4

Date : 09.09.2021

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice B.PUGALENDHI

¶7

CRL OP(MD)No.10577 of 2021

¶8

1.R.Mariappan

¶9

2.R.Pappa ... Petitioners/Accused Rank not Known

¶10

¶11

The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Vilathikulam, Thoothukudi District. (Crime No.Not Known/2021) ... Respondent/Complainant

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.A.D.Ganeshamoorthy, Advocate

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthilkumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶14

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

¶15

PRAYER :-

¶16

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.Not Known of 2021 on the file of the respondent Police.

¶17

ORDER : The Court made the following order :

¶18

On a matrimonial dispute, a complaint has been lodged by the defacto complainant as against the petitioners herein and apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence under Section 498A IPC in Crime No.Not Known of 2021, the petitioners have filed this petition for anticipatory bail.

¶19

Considering the nature of allegation, ie., a matrimonial dispute, this Court has referred the matter to the District Social Welfare Committee, through the respondent police.

¶20

Today, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ instructions from the respondent police, submitted that the parties

¶21

1/2

¶22

CRL OP(MD)No.10577 of 2021

¶23

have compromised the issue and that further action has been dropped.

¶24

Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), this criminal original petition stands closed, as no further order is required to be passed.

¶25

This Court places on record its appreciation to the Officer concerned of the respondent police as well as the Social Welfare Committee for the efforts made by them to settle the issue.

¶26

sd/09/09/2021

¶27

/ TRUE COPY /

¶28

/ /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. gk

¶29

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶30

¶31

1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Vilathikulam, Thoothukudi District.

¶32

2.The Social Welfare Committee, Thoothukudi District.

¶33

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶34

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD)No.10577 of 2021 Date : 09.09.2021

¶35

TR/JC/SAR-II(15.09.2021) 2P 4C

¶36

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

¶37

2/2

R.Mariappan v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Mariappan 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

P.Maruthu Pandi Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

K.Manikandan Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Kala Vs The Inspector of Police

Nigilesan Vs The Inspector of Police

Stanly Kumar Vs The Inspector of Police

Sugumar Vs The Inspector of Police