1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.02.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.1992 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.1272 of 2019
M.Amala …Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
W-8, all Women Police Station,
Thirumangalam,
Chennai-600 037.
2.Saravanakumar @ Yeshwanth …Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 09.01.2019, passed in
Crl.M.P.No.4127 of 2018 in Crime No.20 of 2018 on the file of the
Metropolitan Magistrate Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.J.Ayyappan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1
Mr.R.Thirumoorthy for R2
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
to set aside the order dated 09.01.2019, passed in Crl.M.P.No.4127
of 2018 in Cr.No.20 of 2018 on the file of the Metropolitan
Magistrate Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai. Wherein, the
learned Magistrate permitted the 2nd respondent / accused to leave
from India for six months with advance notice to the respondent
police with containing the place of visit and address and other
details.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
case has been registered as against the 2nd respondent for the
offences under Section 498A,313 and 494 IPC., in Crime No.20 of
2018 on the file of the 1st respondent police. The 2nd respondent
was accordingly arrested and released on bail on 06.12.2018.
3.The learned counsel would further submit that divorce
proceedings is also pending in H.M.O.P.No.274 of 2014 on the file of
the Sub Court Poonamallee and hence the presence of the 2nd
respondent is very much required to complete the trial in the
divorce petition. The learned counsel would further submit that the
2nd respondent was not cooperating with the 1st respondent police to
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
complete the investigation. Only because of his absence, the entire
investigation is stalled and the 1st respondent is not able to proceed
further with the investigation and could not file final report.
Therefore, praying for set aside.
4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would
submit that the 2nd respondent is the husband of the petitioner. He
was arrested and subsequently released on bail. He is working in
abroad as project Manager in AG Melco Elevator Co. LLC Company
at Diera, Dubai, UAE. The 2nd respondent duly obtained permission
of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the Additional Mahila Court,
Egmore, Chennai and left India for his avocation, as his employer
deputed him for his employment. Therefore, the trial Court
considered the same and rightly allowed the petition. Accordingly,
prays for dismissal of this petition.
5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that
the case of the 2nd respondent is pending in H.M.O.P.No.274 of
2014 on the file of the Sub Court Poonamallee. This Court has
already directed the 1st respondent police to complete the
investigation and file a final report within a period of two months.
http://www.judis.nic.in
4
Investigation is still pending.
6.It is seen from the records that the Trial Court permitted the
2nd respondent / accused to leave from India for a period of six
months with advance notice to the respondent police with containing
the place of visit and address and other details. Accordingly, the 2 nd
respondent produced all the details before the 1 st respondent and
went to Dubai for his employment. The condition imposed on the 2nd
respondent reads as follows:
(i) The petitioner is permitted to leave from India for six
months with advance notice to the respondent police
with containing the place of visit and address and other
details
(ii) He shall furnish property security (Original title deed or
in cash) of his own or his relatives to the value of
Rs.10,00,000/-.
(iii) The petitioner is directed to report the respondent
police as and when he returns from abroad.
7.It is also observed that there is no specific date mentioned
in the said order for the return of the 2nd respondent. The
petitioner apprehends that the 2nd respondent is not going to come
http://www.judis.nic.in
5
back to India and the petitioner will be lurched.
8.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case,
the 2nd respondent is hereby directed to return to India on or before
01.08.2019 and report before the 1st respondent on 02.08.2019. If
the 2nd respondent fails to report before the 1st respondent as
directed by this Court, the 1st respondent shall take appropriate
action against the 2nd respondent in accordance with law.
9.With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition
stands disposed of. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
12.02.2018
vsn/kas
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
W-8, all Women Police Station,
Thirumangalam, Chennai-600 037.
2.The Metropolitan Magistrate
Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Madras.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
http://www.judis.nic.in
6
vsn/kas
Crl.O.P.No.1992 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.1272 of 2019
12.02.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in
