BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT( Criminal Jurisdiction )Tuesday v. STATE
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 294(b), 324, 506(ii)
- Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act s. 4
Judgment
Cause title
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT( Criminal Jurisdiction )Tuesday, the Fourth day of October Two Thousand ElevenPRESENTThe Hon`ble Mr.Justice C.S.KARNANCRL OP(MD) No.13544 of 20111.CHITRAVELU 2.AYYANAR ... PETITIONERS
/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 VsSTATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SATHIRAKUDI POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT, CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2011 ... RESPONDENT
/COMPLAINANTFor Petitioner : M/S. R.VENKATESWARAN AdvocateFor Respondent : MR. T.MOHAN, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER :
The Court Made the following order :-The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent policefor the alleged offence punishable under sections 294(b), 324, 506(ii)I.P.C and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act, in Crime No.NotKnown of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and seek anticipatorybail.
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that neither anF.I.R nor a petition is pending as against the petitioners.
Recording the submission of the learned Additional PublicProsecutor, this petition is closed, however, with a direction to therespondent police not to harass the petitioners. sd/- 04/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)TO1.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SATHIRAKUDI POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT2.THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.+1. CC to M/S. R.VENKATESWARAN Advocate SR.No.34862 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13544 of 2011 Date :04/10/2011TR :10.10.2011: 1p/4c
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.