Disposed

K. Senthil Kumar v. the District Superintendent

Madras HC13 Sept 2013CRL OP/31329/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of three Criminal Original Petitions. The High Court directed the Superintendent of Police in the respective districts not to harass the petitioner directly or indirectly, ensuring his peaceful living and legal activities.

What did the court decide?

Direct access to the Superintendent of Police in Thiruvallur, Kancheepuram, and Vellore Districts not to harass the petitioner.

K. Senthil Kumar Vs the District Superintendent — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 13.09.2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS

¶5

Criminal O.P.Nos.31329 to 31331 of 2012

¶6

K.Senthil Kumar .. Petitioner in
all Crl.O.Ps.
Vs.
The Superintendent of Police,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur. .. Respondent in
Crl.O.P.31329 / 2012
The Superintendent of Police,
District Police Office,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram. .. Respondent in
Crl.O.P.31330 /2012
The Superintendent of Police,
Vellore District,
Vellore. .. Respondent in
Crl.O.P.31331 / 2012
These Criminal original petitions are filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C to direct the respondent in each petition not to harass the
petitioner by registering false cases.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Kumana Raja
For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias, Addl. Public Prosecutor
COMMON ORDER

¶7

Since the petitioner is same and the relief sought for is same in the three criminal original petitions and since the submissions are also same, same order is passed in these petitions.

¶8

2.Senthil Kumar, the petitioner under certain circumstances, seems to have come under the adverse notice of police. There were registration of certain criminal cases by police as against him.

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is being continuously harassed by the police. He had succeeded in the several cases filed against him. He is entitled to live peacefully without police harassment.

¶11

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor while refuting the allegations submitted that the respondents will not harass the petitioner.

¶12

5.The post-constitution period witnessed a new era, assuring liberty and personal freedom of the individuals. It is in tune with Article 21, Constitution of India. In Article 21, two phraseology, namely, “life" and "liberty” has been consciously employed by the Constitution makers. Law should not be static. It must be dynamic. From the said two words, in this country, Human Right Jurisprudence developed and is developing. Article 21 is bedrock of Civil Liberties. It is India's equivalent of British "Magna Carta" and it is India's equivalent of American "Bill of Rights". In fact, Article 21 is more than that. The 'soul' of the Indian Constitution rest in Article 21. Right to live so guaranteed does not mean "animal existence / living". It is real, normal living unsullied by police or any authority.

¶13

But, the liberty so guaranteed can be taken away only by a procedure established by law. It should not be a mere procedure. The procedure must be fair, reasonable and just [See : Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597)]. Any exception to Article 21, Constitution of India have to be strictly interpreted.

¶14

7.This human philosophy and idealism is vibrated in our Republican Constitution.

¶15

Merely because persons are accused of having committed certain offences, they are not denuded of their basic right so guaranteed to them. The law enforcing agency can take action in exercise of their statutory powers. But, that does not mean individual liberty can be crushed, personal freedom can be trampled under the foot. Everyone, whether he is an accused or ex-accused is entitled to these basic human right. He is entitled not to be harassed. There shall not be 'legicide'.

¶16

Personal freedom of the petitioner cannot be thwarted by police either directly or indirectly. Many commandments have been issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to safeguard individual liberties. [See: D.K.Basu V. State of W.B. (1997 (1) SCC 416) and Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P. (1994 (4) SCC 260). But, they are obeyed much in breach than in observance.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

10.The submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the respondents will not harass the petitioner is recorded. It is made clear that there shall not be any harassment either directly or indirectly to the petitioner for his peaceful living and pursuing of any legal activity and profession.

¶19

11.With the above observations, these three criminal original petitions are disposed of.

¶20

Sd/-
Asst. Registrar.
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar.
vvk/rrg
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur,.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Kancheepuram District,
District Police Office,
Kancheepuram.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Vellore District,
Vellore.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.Nos.31329 to
31331 of 2012
rsm[co]
Gp/8.10.

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K. Senthil Kumar v. the District Superintendent

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Senthil Kumar v. the District Superintendent

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagaraj Vs the State Rep by Its

S.Nalini Vs State Rep.by

A.Rajkumar Vs the Deputy Superident of

L.Srinivasan Vs the Inspector of Police

K. Vadivelu Vs Rangasamy

A.K.Ashokan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police