SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

M.Amala vs State Rep By on 27 February, 2020

Crl.O.P.No.31693 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27.02.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.O.P.No.31693 of 2019
and Crl.M.P.No.1272 of 2019
M.Amala …Petitioner
Vs.
1.State Rep by,
The Inspector of Police,
W8 All Women Police Station,
Thirumangalam,
Chennai-600 037,
Crime No.20 of 2018
2. G.Saravanakumar @ Yeshwanth …Respondents

Prayer :- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.,to
cancel the bail order dated 06.12.2018 made in Crl.M.P.No.3861 of 2018 passed
by the learned Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai for willfully violating
the order dated 12.02.2019 made in Crl.O.P.No.1992 of 2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran
For Respondents : Mr.L.Charles Premkumar (For R1)
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
: Mr.John Sathyan (For R2)

ORDER

This petition has been filed to cancel the bail order dated 06.12.2018

passed in Crl.M.P.No.3861 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila

Court, Egmore, Chennai.

http://www.judis.nic.in
1/7
Crl.O.P.No.31693 of 2019

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the complaint

lodged by her, the first respondent registered the case in Crime No.20 of 2018,

for the offences under Sections 498A, 313, 494 IPC, against the second

respondent and two others, alleging that the petitioner and the second

respondent are husband and wife and after their marriage, the second respondent

caused cruelty to the petitioner by demanding dowry. The pregnancy of the

petitioner also was aborted forcibly by the second respondent. Thereafter, she

was also driven out from the matrimonial home. Therefore, the petitioner filed a

divorce petition in HMOP.No.274 of 2014 and it is pending. In fact, in the

divorce petition, interim maintenance was awarded in favour of the petitioner

and her child at Rs.20, 000/- per month. Even then, the second respondent did

not comply with the said condition. Therefore, again the petitioner lodged a

complaint under the Domestic Violence Act in D.V.No.21 of 2016, on the file of

the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur. Thereafter, he (the 2nd respondent) got

married with the second accused and also gave birth to a child. Hence, the

complaint.

3. In the said FIR, he was arrested on 29.11.2018 and he was enlarged on

bail in Crl.M.P.No.3861 of 2018, subject to certain conditions. Thereafter, he

again filed another petition in Crl.M.P.No.4127 of 2018 seeking permission to
http://www.judis.nic.in
2/7
Crl.O.P.No.31693 of 2019

go abroad. It was allowed by an order dated 09.01.2019 and the second

respondent was permitted to leave from India for six months with advance

notice to the 1st respondent police and he shall furnish property surety to the

value of Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. The defacto complainant challenged the said order before this Court in

Crl.O.P.No.1992 of 2019 and this Court directed the second respondent to return

to India on or before 01.08.2019 and report before the first respondent on

02.08.2019 failing which the first respondent shall take appropriate action as

against the second respondent. Even then, the second respondent did not return

to India and he deliberately violated the order passed by this Court. Therefore,

she prayed for cancellation of the bail granted to the second respondent.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted

that he got married with the petitioner and gave birth to a child. Thereafter, she

divorced the second respondent and had gone to parents house, and she only

initiated all the proceedings such as divorce petition and domestic complaint as

against the second respondent.

http://www.judis.nic.in
3/7
Crl.O.P.No.31693 of 2019

6. Considering the above facts and circumstances, he was granted bail in

Crl.M.P.No.3861 of 2018 by an order dated 06.12.2018. Thereafter, he filed

application in Crl.M.P.No.4127 of 2018 seeking for permission to go abroad.

Since, he was working at Dubai, he has to report to his employer. He was also

permitted to go abroad. Again, the said order was challenged by the petitioner,

in which, this Court directed the second respondent to return to India on or

before 01.08.2019. Unfortunately, due to his employment, he could not return

back to India as directed by this Court. However, the second respondent filed a

petition before this Court for extension of time. Unfortunately, the petition for

extension of time could not be numbered and it is pending in the SR stage itself.

Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7. Heard, Mr. N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.John

Sathyan learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and Mr.L.Charles

Prem Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first

respondent/state.

8. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that on the

complaint lodged by the petitioner, the first respondent registered a case in

Crime No.20 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 498A, 313, 494 IPC. The
http://www.judis.nic.in
4/7
Crl.O.P.No.31693 of 2019

second respondent was arrested on 29.11.2018 and he was released on bail by an

order dated 06.12.2018. Thereafter, he also filed petition seeking permission to

leave abroad for his job. It was challenged by the defacto complainant/petitioner

before this Court and this Court directed the second respondent to return to

India on or before 01.08.2019 and appear before the first respondent for

interrogation. As directed by this Court, the second respondent did not return to

India and did not comply with the condition imposed by this Court and the

investigation is still pending. Though, the second respondent filed petition for

extension of time it was not numbered and as such, the defacto complainant

came forwarded with this petition to cancel the bail granted to the second

respondent. While pending this petition, the second respondent returned to India

and appeared before the first respondent for interrogation. It is also seen that the

first respondent filed an application before the concerned Court seeking

direction to conduct DNA test of the second respondent and the second accused

to prove that the child was born to first and second accused in Crime No.20 of

2018 and it is pending. The accused persons are also attending the trial Court in

the said application. Further this Court directed the second respondent to appear

before the first respondent for interrogation.

http://www.judis.nic.in
5/7
Crl.O.P.No.31693 of 2019

9. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to cancel the bail granted to the

second respondent. However, the second respondent is directed to appear before

the first respondent for interrogation and he shall co-operate for interrogation

and till completion of the investigation and filing final report, he shall not leave

India. The first respondent is directed to complete the investigation within a

period of three months and file final report from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order in Crime No.20 of 2018.

10. With the above direction this Criminal Original Petition is disposed

of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

27.02.2020
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
mpa

To

1.Additional Mahila Court,
Egmore, Chennai

2.The Inspector of Police,
W8 All Women Police Station,
Thirumangalam,
Chennai-600 037.

3.Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.

http://www.judis.nic.in
6/7
Crl.O.P.No.31693 of 2019

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

mpa

Crl.O.P.No.31693 of 2019
and Crl.M.P.No.1272 of 2019

27.02.2020

http://www.judis.nic.in
7/7

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation