Disposed

The Superintendent of Police Vs

Madras HC5 Feb 2013CRL OP(MD)/1163/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to direct police not to harass her and family during investigation under CrPC 482. Court noted Supreme Court directions against police harassment, recorded assurance from Government Advocate, and directed the respondent police to complete the enquiry expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent is directed to complete the enquiry expeditiously without unnecessarily harassing the petitioner and her family members.

The Superintendent of Police Vs — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.02.2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI Crl.O.P(MD)No.1163 of 2013

A.Paramathai

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District.

¶7

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kanyakumari, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the second respondent not to harass the petitioner and her family members based on the petitioner's complaint dated 02.01.2013.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Velvadhas For Respondents : Mr.A.P.Balasubramanian Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶10

ORDER

¶11

In this Criminal Original Petition, the petitioner has come up seeking a direction to the respondent – police not to harass her and her family members under the guise of investigation or enquiry on a complaint made against him.

¶12

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), per contra, would submit that the respondent – police will not harass the petitioner in any manner. The said statement made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is recorded.

¶13

In my considered view, no one can be harassed under the guise of investigation or enquiry by the police, which does not require any direction from this Court. As a matter of fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.K.Basu vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1997 SC 610 has issued certain directions as to how the accused should be treated by the police while she is in custody and while she is interrogated during investigation or enquiry.

¶14

Having regard to the rival submissions, more particularly, the statement made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) that the respondent – police shall not harass the petitioner, the second respondent is directed to complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible, without unnecessarily harassing the petitioner and her family members.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

In such view of the matter, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the above observation.

Sd/-

Deputy Registrar (W)

/True copy/

Assistant Registrar

1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District.

¶24

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kanyakumari,

¶25

Kanyakumari District.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

Crl.O.P(MD)No.1163 of 2013 05.02.2013

¶29

TR : 13.02.2013 : 2p/4c

¶30

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

The Superintendent of Police Vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Superintendent of Police Vs

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

C.Selvakumar, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Pothuraja Vs the Inspector of Police

Dr.N.J.Kannan M.D.(a.M).M.D Vs the Superintendent of Police

Saravanakumar Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

Rizwana Vs the Inspector of Police

J.P.@Jayaprakash Vs Inspector of Police