Disposed

P.Manivel v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC28 Apr 2014CRL OP(MD)/6817/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal original petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner sought police protection. The Court, after hearing submissions, directed the respondent police to provide protection to the petitioner's life and limb and maintain law and order.

What did the court decide?

The respondent police were directed to give police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and maintain law and order.

P.Manivel Vs the Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.04.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI

¶5

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6817 of 2014

P.Manivel

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶10

The Sub Inspector of Police, Pappakudi Police Station, Pappakudi, Ambasamuthiram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the 1^st respondent to give suitable direction to the 2^nd respondent to take necessary action and give necessary protection to the petitioner by considering the petitioner's complaint dated 26.03.2014 within the period stipulated by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Haja Mohideen For Respondents : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This petition has been filed praying to direct the 1^st respondent to give suitable direction to the 2^nd respondent to take necessary action and give necessary protection to the petitioner by considering the petitioner's complaint dated 26.03.2014.

¶15

Heard both sides.

¶16

3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that they would give police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner.

¶17

4.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (criminal side), the respondent police is directed to give police https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and also maintain law and order.

¶18

¶19

5.With the above said direction, this criminal original petition is ordered.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(Records)

¶22

/True Copy/

¶23

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

The Superintendent of Police,

¶26

Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶27

The Sub Inspector of Police,

¶28

Pappakudi Police Station,

¶29

Pappakudi, Ambasamuthiram Taluk,

¶30

Tirunelveli District.

¶31

The Additional Public Prosecutor

¶32

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶33

+1cc to Mr.A.Haja Mohideen, Advocate, in SR. No.26091.

¶34

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6817 of 2014 28.04.2014

¶35

MPK

¶36

msm 09.05.2014 p2/5c

¶37

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

P.Manivel v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Manivel v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.U. Ramakrishnan Vs R. Yasotha

Sankarguru Vs the Inspector of Police

V.Thirupathi Vs the Inspector of Police

M. Ayisha Benasir Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Suriyabagavandas Vs the Inspector of Police

K. Narayanan Vs the Superintendent of Police