Disposed

Muthu v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC5 Dec 2013CRL OP(MD)/20744/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court, Mumbai Bench, dismissed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by husband-in-laws alleging police harassment. Upon learning the underlying complaint had been closed by the police, the court quashed the petition noting nothing survived for adjudication.

What did the court decide?

petition closed as the underlying complaint was closed after enquiry.

Muthu Vs the Superintendent of Police — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 05.12.2013

¶4

CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN CRL.O.P.(MD)No.20744 of 2013

¶5

1.Muthu

¶6

2.Kannathal 3.Annalmalai 4.Valli 5.Kumar .. Petitioners

¶7

.. Vs ..

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the second respondent police not to harass and interfere with the petitioner's personal rights.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.S.A.Ajmal Khan For respondents : Mr.P.Kandasamy

¶12

Government Advocate(Crl. Side)

¶13

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the second respondent police not to harass and interfere with the petitioner's personal rights.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are husband and in-laws of the de-facto complainant. Alleging matrimonial dispute, the de-facto complainant has given a complaint before the second respondent police. Under the guise of enquiry the petitioners are being repeatedly summoned and harassed day in day out, by the respondent police. Therefore, the petitioners have come forward to file this petition.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

The learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) on instructions would submit that the petition given by the de-facto complainant, after due enquiry, has been closed.

¶20

In view of the same, nothing survives for adjudication in this matter. Therefore, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar(C.O)

¶22

/True Copy/

¶23

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

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

¶26

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Nilakottai, Dindigul District.

¶27

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

¶28

+One cc to Mr.S.A.Ajmal Khan, Advocate, SR.No.60587 pm RL/5 c- 17/12/2013

¶29

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.20744 of 2013

¶30

05.12.2013

¶31

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

Muthu v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthu 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

Adaikalaraj Vs the Inspector of Police

S. Karthigaiselvan Vs the Inspector of Police

Lakshmanan Vs the Inspector of Police

Chellakali Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

A.G.Sakthi Vs the Inspector of Police

Ravi Vs the Inspector of Police