SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vanitha vs Jegaveerapandiyan …. 1St on 23 January, 2020

Crl.O.P.No.29943 of 2019


DATED : 23.01.2020


Crl.O.P.No.29943 of 2019

Vanitha …. Petitioner / Defacto complainant


1.Jegaveerapandiyan …. 1st Respondent / Accused

2.The Station House Officer
All Women Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
Crime No.14 of 2019 …. 2nd Respondent

Prayer :- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. To
cancel the bail granted to 1st respondent in C.M.P.No.1710 of 2019, dated
07.06.2019, by the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate-II, Panruti.

For Petitioner : Ms.R.Raji

For Respondent : Mr.N.Ramesh [R1]
Government Advocate [Crl Side] for R2


The petitioner herein is the defacto complainant in Crime No.14 of 2019,

wherein the first respondent is her husband, who faces accusation for the

Crl.O.P.No.29943 of 2019

offences punishable under Section 498A, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC., The case is

charge sheeted and now pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II,

Panruti in C.C.No.266/2019. The defacto complainant, now seeks cancellation

of bail at this stage and hence, she is before this Court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is

making preparation to escape the jurisdiction of Court and to go abroad.

3. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the first

respondent would submit to the jurisdiction of the Court concerned and that

he has no immediate plans to go abroad and if at all, there is any compelling

need for him to go abroad, he will obtain necessary permission from the

concerned Court, since his right to go abroad cannot be curtailed in view of

the judgment reported in Meneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India [(1978) 1

SCC 248].

4. The learned Government Advocate [Criminal Side] submits that in this case,

the first respondent [A1] evades summons, whereas his father, who received

summons, is appearing before the respondent-police. She further added that

the next posting of this case before the Court concerned is on 04.03.2020.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner now seeks permission of

this Court to withdraw this petition and both the parties undertake to appear

Crl.O.P.No.29943 of 2019

before the Court concerned to work out their remedy.

6. Recording the above, this criminal original petition is dismissed as




Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No


1. Th Judicial Magistrate-II, Panruti.

2. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.

Crl.O.P.No.29943 of 2019



Crl.OP.No.29943 of 2019


Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2022 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