1. The petitioner/Maria Saranya has come up with this petition seeking to cancel the Anticipatory Bail dated 16.06.2016 granted to respondents 1 to 4 in Crl.O.P.No.10535 of 2016.

2. It is seen that prior to the filing of Crl.O.P.No.10535 of 2016 by the respondents 1 to 4, a petition in Crl.O.P.No.9596 of 2016 had been filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein in April 2016. Pending Crl.O.P.No.9596 of 2016, respondents 1 to 4 herein filed Crl.O.P.No.10535 of 2016 on 09.05.2016 seeking anticipatory bail. Thereafter, Crl.O.P.No.9596 of 2016 was referred for mediation and it was subsequently withdrawn in November 2016.

3. According to the petitioner/defacto complainant, there is suppression of facts with regard to the earlier anticipatory bail petition and that at no point of time, the counsel appearing for the accused-respondents has stated either before the Mediation Centre or before this Court when orders were passed in Crl.O.P.No.10535 of 2016 that Crl.O.P.No.9596 of 2016 filed by respondents 1 to 3 is pending. Furthermore, in Crl.O.P.No.10535 of 2016, respondents 1 to 4 have categorically averred that the said petition is the first anticipatory bail petition and no other petition seeking anticipatory bail, is pending before this Court.

4. Respondents 1 to 4 have filed a counter affidavit. According to the 1st respondent/husband of the defacto complainant, marriage between him and the defacto complainant was solemnized on 27.08.2015 as per Christian rites. He denied the averments of the defacto complainant that there was dowry harassment. According to him, he engaged one S.Sathish Rajan, Advocate for filing anticipatory bail petition in Crl.O.P.No.10535 of 2016 and the matter came up for hearing on 11.05.2016. On the said date, the Public Prosecutor stated that petition enquiry is pending against respondents 1 to 4 and by an order dated 12.05.2016, this Court directed the Police to complete the enquiry and file a Status Report within a period of four weeks. Subsequently, when the matter came up on 16.06.2017, this Court granted Anticipatory bail to respondents 1 to 4 with certain conditions and according to respondents 1 to 4, they have strictly adhered to the conditions imposed by this Court.

5. It is further stated by respondents 1 to 4 that they received a Notice dated 04.08.2016 from the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court calling upon them to appear before the Mediation Centre on 12.08.2016 as per the order made in Crl.O.P.No.9596 of 2016. According to them, only on further verification, they came to understand that Crl.O.P.No.9596 of 2016 was filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, seeking Anticipatory Bail. According to the 1st respondent, he has not engaged any Advocate, except S.Sathish Rajan, to file the anticipatory bail petition on their behalf and that Crl.O.P.No.9596 of 2016 came to be filed without his instructions. It is also the case of the 1st respondent that he and his mother appeared before the Mediation Centre and informed the Mediators that he has not filed any application in Crl.O.P.No.9596 of 2016 and that he has filed only Crl.O.P.No.10535 of 2016 seeking anticipatory bail.

6. It is further stated by the 1st respondent in the counter that the parties attended the Mediation, but, as the defacto complainant was adamant and refused for re-union and demanded huge amount as One-Time Settlement, the mediation failed. He went on to state that even before the mediation, the Advocate who filed Crl.O.P.No.9596 of 2016 without his instructions, did not appear and that he has not suppressed any fact in Crl.O.P.No.10535 of 2016, muchless about the pendency of the earlier petition. He contended that the petition filed by the defacto complainant seeking to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to them is only to extort money from them and hence, prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

7. The 6th respondent herein/S.Ambigapathi, Advocate, Enrolment No.1882/1999 has filed an affidavit that the 1st respondent/