Disposed

M.Babumathi v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC19 Apr 2013WP(MD)/3642/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order sets aside an initial police notice in a property dispute pending in civil court. The Court directed the police section to issue a fresh notice, mandating the petitioner to produce documents to substantiate her possession claim by April 29, 2013, before the enquiry proceeds.

What did the court decide?

Police directed to issue fresh notice for April 29, 2013, requiring petitioner to produce documents to substantiate her contention before the respondent officer takes a decision.

M.Babumathi Vs the Commissioner of Police — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 19.04.2013

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.3642 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013

M.Banumathi

: Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell, Madurai City.

¶11

3.T.Shanmugam : Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated Nil issued by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent not to harass the petitioner and his family members.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muthalraj For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.S.Kumar, Additional Government Pleader For Respondent No.3 : Mr.S.Poorna Chandran

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Writ Petition is directed against the notice issued by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell, Madurai City, directing the petitioner to appear on 02 March, 2013, in connection with a complaint preferred by the third respondent.

¶16

The petitioner is stated to be in possession and enjoyment of the property, in respect of which, a complaint was preferred by the third respondent before the Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell, Madurai. According to the petitioner, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The petitioner also filed a civil suit in O.S.No.1188 of 2012, before the learned District Munsif, Madurai. Since the civil Court is now seized of the matter, the petitioner wanted the police not to take any action. In the meantime, the police issued a notice under Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The said notice is challenged in this Writ Petition.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first and second respondents.

¶20

The order impugned in this Writ Petition is only a notice issued by the police. The third respondent preferred a complaint against the petitioner resulting in issuing the impugned notice by the police. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner earlier appeared before the police and explained the factual position. However, there is nothing on record to show that the police earlier summoned the petitioner to the police station. In case the petitioner is having documents in her possession to substantiate her contention in the matter, nothing prevented her from producing those documents before the police.

¶21

The Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell, Madurai, is directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner and the third respondent, directing them to appear for an enquiry at 10.30 a.m., on 29 April, 2013 . The petitioner is directed to appear and produce the documents to substantiate her contention before the second respondent. It is for the second respondent to take a decision in the matter, in the light of the complaint preferred by the third respondent and the explanation offered by the petitioner.

¶22

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

Sd/-

Deputy Registrar(J)

/True Copy/

Assistant Registrar

1.The Commissioner of Police,

¶29

Madurai City.

¶30

2.The Inspector of Police,

¶31

Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell, Madurai City.

¶32

+1CC TO Mr.S.Poornachandran, Advocate, Sr.No.22613

¶33

+1cc to Mr.S.Muthalraj, Advocate, Sr.No.22747

¶34

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.3642 of 2013

¶35

sml

¶36

SMA/23/04/2013/5C/2P

¶37

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

M.Babumathi v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Babumathi v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Karthick, Vs the Director of Fisheries

Packiam, Vs the District Collector

M. Subbiah, Vs the Superintending Engineer

S.Arul Vs the District Collector

Pandi, Vs the District Collector

M. Selvaprasanth, Vs the General Manager