Allowed

M.Murugesan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC19 Mar 2015CRL OP/1311/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition challenging a summons issued under Section 91 Cr.P.C. It set aside the summons for lacking specific details of documents to be produced, granting liberty to the police to issue a fresh summons with proper particulars.

What did the court decide?

The summons dated 14.01.2015 is set aside. Liberty is given to the police to issue a fresh summons mentioning the details of documents to be produced.

M.Murugesan Vs the Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 19.03.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.1311 of 2015 and

¶6

M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶7

M.Murugesan 2) M.Kandasamy 3) Subramani 4) S.Soundarajan 5) Devaraj. ..Petitioners/Respondents. vs. The State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Palacode Police Station, Dharmapuri District. ..Respondent/Complainant.

¶8

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for records and to set aside the summons, dated 14.01.2015 issued in C.S.R.No.455 of 2014, on the file of the respondent/Police, Dharmapuri District. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.M.Maharaja Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶9

This Petition is filed to set aside the summons issued to petitioners under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. in connection with C.S.R.No.455 of 2014.

¶10

It is submitted by the the learned counsel appearing for petitioners that, under Section 91 Cr.P.C., Police is entitled to issue summons, directing the petitioner to produce certain documents for enquiry, but, it must mention the list of documents to be produced by the petitioner and without mentioning the list of documents to be produced by the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be called for enquiry.

¶11

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

¶12

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/Police submitted that fresh summons will be issued to petitioners giving details of documents to be produced by them for enquiry.

¶13

Recording the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed, the summon, dated 14.01.2015, issued to the petitioners is set aside, and liberty is given to the respondent/Police to issue fresh summons to the petitioners, mentioning the details of documents to be produced by the petitioners for enquiry. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.

¶14

sd
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-II)
Dt:30/3/2015
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Palacode Police Station,
Dharmapuri District.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
rsy(co)
prk31/3
Crl.O.P.No.1311 of 2015

¶15

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

M.Murugesan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Murugesan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Ramakanathan, Vs State by

P.Subramaniyan M/63 Yrs Vs the State Rep by

Salath Mery Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Arjunan Vs a.Madhusoodhanan

E.Sukumaran Vs Ramesh Babu

Vs