Disposed

B.Suriyanarayanan, v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC7 Jun 2013CRL OP(MD)/4331/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court directed respondents not to harass petitioners. Police investigation to be conducted in accordance with law. Petitioners required to appear if summoned with right to advocate assistance.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued not to harass petitioners; investigation to be done in accordance with law; petitioners to appear if summoned with right to advocate.

B.Suriyanarayanan, Vs the Superintendent of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.06.2013

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.MALA

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.4331 of 2013

1.B.Suriyanarayanan

2.P.Panner Selvam

3.Rajeswari

4.Rajendran ... Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

1.The Superintendent of Police,

¶13

Madurai District.

¶14

2.State rep. By the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch,

¶15

Madurai District.

¶16

3.State rep. By the Inspector of Police, Elumalai Police Station, Madurai District. ... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to direct the respondents herein not to harass the petitioners and not to interfere in the civil dispute.

¶18

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Ravi

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.P.Kandasamy,

¶20

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This petition is filed seeking for a direction, directing the respondents not to harass or ill-treat the petitioners in the name of enquiry.

¶23

The main grievance of the petitioners is that without any valid reason, the respondents police is harassing the petitioners for which the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would gainsay such allegations.

¶24

Whatever might be the circumstances, there shall be no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ harassment to the petitioners, but let the police investigate into the matter in accordance with law and the mandates as found set out in D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR (1997) SC 610 . If

¶25

¶26

really, the police want to interrogate, it is open for the police to issue summons to the petitioners. Thereupon, the petitioners shall appear before the police and submit themselves for interrogation. The petitioners is also permitted to take the assistance of the Advocate to the limited extent as found envisaged in the precedent cited supra.

¶27

With the above direction, this petition is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True Copy/

Sub	Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.
2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Elumalai Police Station, Madurai District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1CC TO Mr.S. Ravi , Advocate, SR 29874
rj2 MM/17.06.2013/2P-6C/
	Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.4331 of 2013 07.06.2013

¶32

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

B.Suriyanarayanan, v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Suriyanarayanan, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avudaiyappan Vs Kalyani

C.Thirukannan Vs the Inspector of Police

Narayanan Vs the Inspector of Police

B.Radhakrishnan Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Saibunnisa Vs the Deputy Superintendent

Ajmalkhan Vs Inspector of Police