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