Allowed

R.Ganesh v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC29 Jul 2021CRL OP(MD)/990/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to four petitioners accused of dowry harassment charges. The court ordered the return of specific dowry items and cash before granting bail, which was subsequently complied with. Bail was granted on standard conditions including cooperation and non-absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail via bond of Rs.10,000 each with two sureties upon compliance with conditions to return specific dowry items and cash.

R.Ganesh Vs The Inspector of Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 29/07/2021 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.CHANDRASEKHARAN CRL OP(MD). No.990 of 2021

¶4

R.Ganesh

¶5

Ramakrishnan

¶6

Malliga

¶7

Pandimurugan

¶8

... Petitioners/Accused 1 to 4

¶9

¶10

The State represented by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Devakottai, Sivagangai District. Crime No. 1 of 2021. ... Respondent/Complainant

¶11

Priyanka ...Petitioner/Defacto Complainant CRL MP(MD)1834 of 2021 in CRL OP(MD)NO.990 OF 2021

¶12

For Petitioners :Mr.Prabhakaran.R,

¶13

Advocate. For Intervenor :Mr.Lakshmanasamy Advocate For Respondent :Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, 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.1 of 2021 on the file of the Respondent Police.

¶17

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶18

The petitioners/A1 to A4, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 294(b), 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act in Crime No.1 of 2021, seek anticipatory bail.

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the defacto complainant and the first accused Ganesan was solemnized on 23.05.2019. At the time of marriage the accused persons claimed 100 sovereigns of gold jewels, 50 silver articles and Rs.10 lakh cash. The defacto complainant family accepted for the said demand of dowry. The defacto complainant was provided with 83 sovereigns of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ gold jewels,37 silver articles and Rs.8 lakhs cash with house hold articles. Marriage expenses was also taken care by the defacto

¶20

¶21

complainant family. After marriage the defacto complainant started to live in a joint family consisting of her parents-in-law, her husband's brother, his wife. She was working as a software Engineer in Temenos India Pvt Ltd. Her father-in-law got her jewels and silver articles apart from her monthly salary of Rs.54,650/- which was deposited in her father-in -law account as per his instructions. Even if she delays by one day to deposit the said amount her father-in-law would scold her. She has to depend on her father-in law even for one rupee. Since she was not able to meet out her personal expenses she kept Rs.10000/- in her account and started depositing Rs.44,000/- to the account of her father-in-law. Her father-in -law told her husband about that and if the defacto complainant did not deposit the entire salary, he asked her to go out of the house. Her husband was also talking only in support of his parents. He advised the defacto complainant to deposit the said amount of Rs.10,000/- in his father's account. Then they started harassing the defacto complainant by pointing that though they demanded 100 sovereigns of gold jewels but the defacto complainant had brought only 83 sovereigns of gold jewels . She was not provided with food. One day when she was eating food her mother-in-law took her plate, threw it and scolded her in filthy language. From 23.03.2020 due to Corona the defacto complainant was working from home at Kottavayal . Her husband's brother has no issues. Therefore she was told that until her husband's brother procures a child she should not conceive. Saying so they kept her husband separately. They said that if she does not bring the remaining jewels they would kill her. Therefore the case came to be registered.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case.

¶23

The learned counsel for the intervenor/ defacto complainant would submit that the defacto complainant was ill-treated, harassed, abused for want of dowry. Still her jewels, silver articles are available with the petitioners. She had also deposited Rs. 4,61,000/- in the account of her father-in-law. If the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, the defacto complainant will not be in a position to recover the gold jewels, silver articles and cash. Therefore he seeks dismissal of the petition.

¶24

This matter was referred to mediation. Mediation was conducted. Thereafter report was sent from the mediation centre to this Court stating that mediation completed. No agreement was reached.

¶25

It is a case of matrimonial dispute. There are claims and counter claims. The defacto complainant claims that the jewels, silver articles, cash and other household articles are with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioners. She was provided with 83 sovereigns of gold jewels, 37 silver articles and that are available with the petitioners. It has

¶26

¶27

been denied by the petitioners. The petitioners claims that they have not demanded any additional dowry. However they admit that the deposit of Rs.4,61,000/- in the account of the father-in-law of the defacto complainant, who is the second accused in this case. It is now submitted by the petitioners that the petitioners are willing to give back Rs.4,61,000/- to the defacto complainant. Claim and counter claim with regard to the jewels, silver articles and dowry is a matter to be considered during the time of trial on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. There is concrete evidence available in the form of admission that the defacto complainant deposited Rs.4,61,000/- in the account of the second accused. It is also seen from the affidavit sworn by the petitioners that the petitioner is in possession of 37 silver items, 40 bronze items, 155 silver items and other wooden items count to 3.

¶28

In view of the same, the petitioners were directed to hand over 37 silver items, 40 bronze items, 155 silver items and other wooden items count to 3 and Rs.4,61,000/- to the defacto complainant on or before 29.07.2021 in the presence of the respondent police.

¶29

As directed by this Court it is represented by both parties that in terms of order in para (6) dated 20.07.2021 the petitioners have returned all the items and cash to the defacto complainant.

¶30

9.In view of the said development, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶31

10.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/(Rupees ten thousand only)each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶32

[a] the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶33

[b] the petitioners are directed to co-operated with the respondent police for enquiry and during trial.

¶34

[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶35

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ investigation or trial;

¶36

¶37

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

¶38

[ f ]If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

¶39

[g] With regard to the claim of gold jewels, the issue is left open for being considered in the trial.

¶40

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

¶41

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.

¶42

¶43

THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DEVAKOTTAI.

¶44

DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

¶45

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, DEVAKOTTAI, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

¶46

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

¶47

ORDER

¶48

¶49

CRL OP(MD) No.990 of 2021 Date : 29/07/2021

¶50

VB/VR/SAR.II/02.08.2021/4P/5C

¶51

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

R.Ganesh v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Ganesh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pirins @ Prince Vs The Inspector of Police

M.Neethirajan Vs The Inspector of Police

Mohamed Idiris.a Vs The Inspector of Police

S.Sutha Vs The Inspector of Police

D.Thangaraj Pandiyan Vs The Inspector of Police

Dhayanithi Vs The Inspector of Police