Disposed

Anitha v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC5 Mar 2015CRL OP/1850/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC by a petitioner seeking direction to the Police to register an FIR against her husband concerning a fake email ID created to tarnish her reputation. The court noted pending inquiries and closed the petition without directing registration.

What did the court decide?

The petition was closed pending information from the Google Company regarding the email maintainer.

Anitha Vs the Commissioner of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.03.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.1850 of 2015

¶6

Mrs.Anitha ...Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

The Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Cyber Crime Branch, Vepery,
Chennai - 600 007. ...Respondents
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code praying to direct the respondents to take the
complaint of the petitioner, dated 08.12.2014, addressed to the first
respondent on file and to investigate and to register a case/FIR
against Sathiya Sivaramakrishnan, in accordance with law.
For Petitioner : Ms.S.Deepika
For Respondents: Mr.M.Maharaja
Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R

¶9

This Criminal Original Petition is filed, seeking direction upon the respondent/Police to register an FIR on the complaint given by the petitioner, dated 08.12.2014.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, in para No.21 of the petitioner's complaint, the petitioner has given details about the fake e-mail ID in the name of one Raviramachandran and according to the petitioner, the said e-mail ID, created in the name Raviramachandran, was maintained by her husband, only with a mala fide intention of bringing disrepute to the petitioner's, as if, the petitioner is having illicit relationship with Raviramachandran. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that case has to be registered against the petitioner's husband.

¶11

It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/Police that the respondent/Police have sought information from the Google Company, to ascertain as to who is

¶12

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

¶13

maintaining the e-mail ID in the name of Raviramachandran, and they are yet to get response. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that, after the receipt of information from the Google Company, regarding the address of the person, who is maintaining the e-mail ID, the respondent/Police will take further action.

¶14

Recording the above submission, the Criminal Original Petition is closed.

¶15

sd
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
Dt:26/3/2015
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Cyber Crime Branch, Vepery,
Chennai - 600 007.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
nm(co)
prk30/3
Crl.O.P.No.1850 of 2015

¶16

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

Anitha v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anitha 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Chandran Vs Palaniammal

C.Subathra Banu F/a 30 Yrs Vs State Rep by

Muthukumar Vs State Rep by

Deepak Chandrasekar Vs the Inspector of Police

Mr. I.Jainlavudin, Vs The Assistant General Manager

K.Rubeena Tazeen Vs the Inspector of Police