BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 26.07.2024 Delivered on : 29.10.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI CRL.M.P.(MD)No.6574 of 2024 in CRL.O.P.(MD). No.7017 of 2024 B.Kumari ... Petitioner/Defacto Complainant Vs.

1.The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Manimuthar Police Station, Tirunelveli District. ... 1^st Respondent/Respondent

2.Mani ... 2^nd Respondent/Petitioner/Accused No.2 PRAYER :- The petition under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., has been filed to cancel the Anticipatory Bail order dated 29.05.2024, granted in Crl.O.P. (MD)No.7017 of 2024 in Crime No.37 of 2024, on the file of the second respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Satheesh Kumar For 1^st Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor For 2^nd Respondent : Mr.S.Mahendrapathy

ORDER

A Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.6574 of 2024, came to be filed by the petitioner/defacto complainant, seeking to cancel the anticipatory bail order passed by this Court on 29.05.2024, in Crl.O.P. (MD)No.7017 of 2024, in Crime No.37 of 2024, of Manimuttaru Police Station.

2.The claim of the defacto complainant is that, the first accused in Crime No.37 of 2024 is the cousin brother of the complainant, who is a practicing Advocate before this Court and the second accused is his father. Due to a pre-existing civil dispute between the defacto complainant's family and that of the accused, the first accused had played a key role in intimidating his father to attack the defacto complainant along with his father. Resultantly, the first accused had brutally attacked the defacto complainant and the same had been photographed and videographed by the minor daughter of the defacto complainant. While doing so, the second accused had behaved in an abusive manner by removing his dhoti, which would attract the offence under Section 11 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the first accused by his influence as a practicing Lawyer managed the jurisdictional Police from registering a case excluding the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Hence, the defacto complainant had made a representation to the Superintendent of Police on 21.03.2024. Since there was no response from the Superintendent of Police, the defacto complainant was forced to file Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5824 of 2024 to transfer the investigation to any other investigating agency and the matter was disposed of on 17.04.2024, by this Court and the operative portion of the same is extracted as follows:-

“3.Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the petitioner, this Court hereby directs the first respondent/Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, to take a call on this issue and to find out whether the investigation is being done in a proper manner. If there is any violation, the first respondent is directed to transfer the investigation of this case from the file of the 2^nd respondent to any other investigating agency.”

3.In the meanwhile, an Anticipatory Bail Application was filed by the first accused in Crl.M.P.No.2856 of 2024 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, at Tirunelveli and on producing the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5824 of 2024 before the aforesaid Court, the Anticipatory Bail Application came to be dismissed on 30.04.2024. Subsequently, by virtue of the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 5824 of 2024 and the First Information Report in Crime No.37 of 2024 on the file of the jurisdictional Police came to be altered from Sections 294(a), 294(b), 324, 307, 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998, to one under Sections 294(a), 294(b), 324, 307, 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 and Section 12 r/w. 11(1) and 17 r/w. 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. However, suppressing the alteration of the FIR and the reasons for the cancellation of the earlie