✦ High Court of India · 13 Jun 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 13 Jun 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

13 Jun 2025

Bench

Not available

Length

1,530 words

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code §229 Indian Penal Code §3 and 4 Indian Penal Code §4 Indian Penal Code §498 Indian Penal Code §498A Indian Penal Code Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act 1998

Crl.O.P.No.14599 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASReserved On22.05.2025Pronounced on13.06.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMARCrl.O.P.No.14599 of 20251.Vijeyanathan.C.R2.Vimalarasi V.G3.Sangeetha V.G ... Petitioners/A2, A3 and A4Vs.The State represented by,The Inspector of Police,CCB-I Chennai(Crime No.44 of 2025).... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., 2023 to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before any court in connection with Cr.No.44 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.Anirudh A Sriram For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14599 of 2025For Intervenor : Mr.R.John Sathyansenior counsel assisted byMr.S.YogarajasekarO R D E RThe petitioners/A2, A3 and A4, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 307, 294(b), 506(1), 465, 468, 34 IPC and under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998 in Crime No.44 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 is the husband of the defacto complainant and the petitioners herein are the in-laws of the defacto complainant. A1 and the defacto complainant had known each other since 2009 and had a love affair. After obtaining the consent of both families, their engagement, took place on 30.09.2022, and subsequently, their wedding was solemnized on 12.03.2023 at Chennai. Although they were in a long-term love relationship, differences arose within three months after their marriage, turning their happy life into a dreadful and painful relationship. The petitioners herein are alleged to have harassed the defacto complainant by 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14599 of 2025demanding money. Hence, the case. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would contend that the petitioners are only the in-laws of the defacto complainant. Due to a difference of opinion between A1 and the defacto complainant, the defacto complainant preferred a complaint before the respondent police, and a case was registered in Crime No.44 of 2025 on 13.03.2025 and that the petitioners are no way connected to the present case. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4. Per contra, Mr.R.John Sathyan, learned senior counsel appearing for the Intervenor / defacto complainant, contended that although it was a love-cum-arranged marriage, A1 had demanded a huge amount of money as dowry and further, A1 and the petitioners herein had made many attempts to spoil and misuse the reputation of the defacto complainant's family. 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14599 of 20255. The learned senior counsel appearing for the intervenor / defacto complainant further pointed out that the husband and all the in-laws of the defacto complainant were involved in many criminal cases and they have bad antecedents, particularly relating to cases concerning cryptocurrency. He further pointed out that the Whatsapp chats between A1 and the defacto complainant would show that A1 along with the petitioners herein had created a forged rental agreement with forged signature of the defacto complainant, which was signed by A1. The learned senior counsel further contended that the debit cards of the defacto complainant were used by A1. Therefore, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record, including the First Information Report.7. While considering the allegations and counter allegations made between the parties, it is clear that subject matter of this case is more than just a difference of opinion between the husband and wife. The petitioners herein who are the in-laws of the defacto complainant attempted to spoil the 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14599 of 2025reputation of the defacto complainant's family. 8. The reputation of a family is built over time and plays a significant role in determining its social status. Baseless allegations can destroy the reputation built by a family over the years. Furthermore, creating a rental agreement with the forged signature of the defacto complainant without her knowledge or consent is a serious issue. The petitioners' admission that the rental agreement was created solely for obtaining a bank loan does not justify their actions. This act constitutes cheating and fabrication of documents, which is required to be determined during the trial. 9. The learned senior counsel for the defacto complainant laid emphasis on the aforesaid allegations against A1 by producing the original rental agreement between one Srinivasan and Shivakumar/A1, and the forged rental agreement created by A1 and the petitioners in the name of the defacto complainant. A comparison of these two documents clearly indicates that A1 along with the petitioners herein had consciously created a forged rental agreement purporting that it was prepared and signed by his wife, the defacto complainant. 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14599 of 202510. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) has filed a counter, in which the Assistant Commissioner of Police in Paragraph 5, has detailed the antecedents of A2 and A4 as follows:"5. It is further submitted that the petitioner A2 Tr.Vijeyanathan and A4 Tmt. Sangeetha is having a cheating case in St. Thomas Mount Police Station Cr.No.395/2023, U/s 406, 420 of IPC. The petitioner/ accused A4 Tmt. Sangeetha and A5 Tr. Bijoy is already involved as accused in 1) Avadi City CCD-I Cr.No.244/2024, U/s 318 of BNS 2023 r/w 66 (D) of Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008, 2) Avadi City CCD - I Cr.No.150/2024, U/s U/s 420 of IPC r/w 66 (D) of Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008 and 3) Vellore CCD - II Cr.No.57/2024, U/s 420 of IPC r/w 66 (D) of Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008. Since, the complainant's family refused to help the petitioner/accused A4 & A5 to get rid of the cases, all the accused interfere and disturb the peaceful life of the defacto complainant and her family even after her separation from A1 accused."11. Though this is a case of family dispute which has culminated into a criminal case under Section 498A of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act coupled with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, the facts demonstrate the cruel and criminal 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14599 of 2025nature of A1. 12. As the bad antecedents of the petitioners herein relate to other offences which are not connected to the present case, it does not directly impact the dispute between the husband and wife. Given the nature of serious allegations made by the defacto complainant against the in-laws, who have filed the anticipatory bail application, this Court is of the view that it is appropriate to approach the family court for mutual divorce, or to reconcile their relationship. 13. As the case arises out of differences between the husband, wife and other in-laws, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts suggest for mediation to amicably resolve such disputes. Such an exercise is advisable, as it helps to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings. Thereby, the parties are advised to workout their remedies through mediation and resolve all the pending issues. 14. Taking into consideration that the bad antecedents of the petitioners are not connected to the present case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, on the following conditions.7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14599 of 202515. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that:[a] the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity.[b] the petitioners 1 and 3 shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; and the second petitioner shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14599 of 2025[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners are released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].[f]If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC. 13 . 06 .2025Anu(2/4)9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14599 of 2025N.SENTHILKUMAR ,J. AnuTo1.The XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet. 2. The Inspector of Police,CCB-I Chennai3.The Public Prosecutor,High Court of Madras. Pre-delivery order made in Crl.O.P.No.14599 of 202513. 06.202510/10

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Indian Penal Code