Disposed

C. Manikumar v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC7 Feb 2013CRL OP(MD)/1001/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court passed an order under Section 482 CrPC directing specific police officials not to harass the petitioner by interfering in a civil dispute regarding temple entry rights.

What did the court decide?

The second and third respondents (police officials) are directed not to unnecessarily harass the petitioner by causing unnecessary interference into any civil dispute between the parties.

C. Manikumar Vs the Superintendent of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.02.2013

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1001 of 2013

¶7

C.Manikumar ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶10

The Inspector of Police, Thuckalay Police Station, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.

¶11

The Sub Inspector of Police, Thuckalay Police Station, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.

¶12

V.Anandakrishnan ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the second and third respondents not to harass and prevent the petitioner or his men from entering into their temple namely Sri SudalaiMadasamy Temple, at Chanthaivazhi, Puliyoorkurichy Village, Kanyakumari District.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Kishore For Respondents : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) for R.1 to R.3

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Heard both sides.

¶17

Learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submits that no petition is pending against the petitioner.

¶18

The sequence of events and the nature of proceedings initiated and the nature of the order passed thereunder and the consequence that are said to be faced by the petitioner in the hands of the respondents/Police Officials would disclose that the police Officials particularly the respondents 2 and 3 have attempted to unnecessarily interfere into the dispute between the parties, which appears to be more of civil in nature.

¶19

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

¶20

In that event, this Court is compelled to pass appropriate directions to the respondents 2 and 3 in this regard. Accordingly, the

¶21

¶22

respondents 2 and 3 are directed not to unnecessarily harass the petitioner by causing unnecessary interference into any civil dispute between the parties.

¶23

With the above directions, this petition is ordered.

¶24

ssl Sd/Deputy Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

The Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 2. The Inspector of Police, Thuckalay Police Station, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District. 3. The Sub Inspector of Police, Thuckalay Police Station, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District. 4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶27

+1 cc to M/s.C.Kishore, Advocate SR.No.5487. Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1001 of 2013 Dated:07.02.2013

¶28

2P/6C RPB 19.02.2013

¶29

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

C. Manikumar v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. Manikumar v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subash Vs the Inspector of Police

Nagulakumar Vs the Inspector of Police

M. Selvakumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Indrani, Vs the Commissioner of Police

B.Pakkiyalakshmi, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Pandiammal Vs the Inspector of Police