Dismissed

Malar v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC11 Jun 2024CRL OP(MD)/5068/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding offences under IPC Sections 294(b) and 506(ii). The Court noted that parties had settled the issue amicably and no case was registered. The police were directed to drop proceedings, and the petition was closed.

What did the court decide?

Police directed to drop proceedings as against the petitioners; petition closed.

Malar Vs The Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.5068 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 11/06/2024 PRESENT

¶3

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice B.PUGALENDHI

¶4

CRL OP(MD). No.5068 of 2024

¶5

Malar, 2. Praveenkumar, ... Petitioners/Accused Rank Not Known Vs

¶6

The State represented by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thirupathur, Sivagangai District.

¶7

(Crime No.not known of 2024). ... Respondent/Complainant

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.S.AYYANAR PREM KUMAR, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.P.KOTTAI CHAMY,

¶9

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶10

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

¶11

PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.not known of 2024 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶12

The petitioners, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent Police, in connection with a case in Crime No.not known of 2024, for the offence punishable

¶13

under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC, have filed this petition seeking anticipatory bail.

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2.The case of the prosecution is that due to matrimonial dispute, on 22.03.2024,

¶15

1/3

¶16

CRL OP(MD). No.5068 of 2024

¶17

the petitioners have abused the defacto complainant and threatened her with dire consequences. Hence the case.

¶18

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as per the

¶19

direction of this Court, the parties have appeared before the Social Welfare Officer concerned and amicably resolved their issue. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶20

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent Police submits that as the parties have settled their issued, the defacto complainant is intending to withdraw the complaint. Till now, no case has been registered as against the petitioners.

¶21

5.Since it is reported that the parties have amicably settled their issue and no case has been registered as against the petitioners, the respondent police is directed to drop the proceedings as against the petitioners. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

sd/11/06/2024

/ TRUE COPY /

/06/2024

Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

2/3

¶28

CRL OP(MD). No.5068 of 2024

¶29

¶30

¶31

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THIRUPATHUR, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

¶32

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

¶33

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.5068 of 2024 Date :11/06/2024

¶34

SA/GS/SAR. /21.06.2024/3P/3C

¶35

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023.

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

3/3

Malar v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malar 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

Thiyagarajan Vs The Inspector of Police

Jyoti Tobi Jones Vs The District Collector

Sermadurai Vs The Inspector of Police

Sivaji @ Rengarasu @Rengaraj Vs The Inspector of Police

G.Vivek Vs The Inspector of Police

Gunasekaran Vs The Inspector of Police