Dismissed

Epsiba Beula v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC5 Aug 2013CRL OP(MD)/10685/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., directed the respondents-police to consider a representation by the pregnant petitioner for protection against threats. The court did not grant immediate protection but directed the police to pass an appropriate order within 15 days of receiving the order.

What did the court decide?

The respondent police are directed to consider the petitioner's representation and pass an appropriate order for protection within 15 days.

Epsiba Beula Vs the Superintendent of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 05.08.2013

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA

¶6

Criminal Original Petition(MD)No.10685 of 2013

¶7

Epsiba Beula .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police, Samyapuram Police Station, Trichy District. .. Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to direct the second respondent police to take action against the accused persons and not to interfere when there is a civil dispute and to provide adequate police protection for the Life and Limb of the petitioner and her mother based on the petitioner's representation dated 15.05.2013.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Rajarajan Govt. Advocate (Crl.side)

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner has come forward with this application for a direction directing the second respondent police to take action against the accused persons and not to interfere when there is a civil dispute and to provide adequate police protection for the Life and Limb of the petitioner and her mother based on the petitioner's representation dated 15.05.2013, so several relief has been clubbed together and sought for police protection.

¶15

2.During the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner restricted his prayer only to provide police protection for the Life and Limb of the petitioner and her mother based on the representation dated 15.05.2013 and the petitioner is the pregnant lady and she was apprehended for threat in the hands of the accused persons. In such circumstances, the first and second respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 15.05.2013 and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

Assistant Registrar[CO]

¶19

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

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

¶22

¶23

1.The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶24

2.The Inspector of Police, Samyapuram Police Station, Trichy District.

¶25

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶26

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10685 of 2013

¶27

Dated:05.08.2013

¶28

2P/4C RPB 16.08.2013

¶29

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

Epsiba Beula v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Epsiba Beula v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhu Vs the Inspector of Police

I .Sridhar Meanon @ Vs the Inspector of Police

Mrs.C.Vasanthi Vs the Forest Range Officer

A.R.Rani Vs the Superintednent of Polcie

P. Krishnan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Velmurugan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police