Disposed

The Branch Manager, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC17 Feb 2015CRL OP/3756/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted a prayer in a criminal original petition. The petitioner sought directions preventing the police from interrogating or harassing them regarding deposited amounts linked to a theft case involving a third party. The court issued a direction to the police to refrain from such actions under D.K. Basu guidelines and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry.

The Branch Manager, Vs the Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 17.02.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.3756 of 2015

¶6

The Branch Manager Muthoot Fincorp Limited No.513-A, 1 floor Above Dhandapani Jewellery Trichy Road, Singanalloor Coimbatore – 641 005. ...Petitioner/3rd Party Vs. Inspector of Police B-12, Ukkadam Crime Police Station Coimbatore City. (Crime No.1404/2013). ...Respondent/Complainant

¶7

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondent not to harass the petitioner on the pretext of investigation in Crime No.1404 of 2013 by insisting the petitioner to hand over the gold ornaments pledged by K.Srinivasa Pandian.

¶8

For Petitioner : M/S.Sai Bharath and Ilan For Respondents : Mr.M.Maharaja Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶9

Heard both sides.

¶10

2.The petitioner has come forward with this petition directing the respondent not to harass the petitioner on the pretext of investigation in Crime No.1404 of 2013.

¶11

3.A case in Crime No.1404 of 2013 has been registered against one Srinivasa Pandian under Section 379 IPC for commission of theft of Rs.48,000/-.

¶12

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

¶13

4.According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the above said amount has been deposited before the petitioner Bank and on the confession given by the said Srinivasa Pandian, the respondent wants to interrogate the petitioner.

¶14

5.Considering the submissions made by both sides, I am inclined to give a direction to the respondent not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry and follow the dictum laid down in D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR (1997) SC 610.

¶15

6.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

¶16

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-II)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kj
To
1.The Inspector of Police
B-12, Ukkadam Crime Police Station
Coimbatore City.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High court, Madras.104.

¶17

1 CC to M/S.Sai Bharath and Ilan, Advocate SR.No. 8344

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.3756 of 2015

¶19

SAI (CO) PSI (02.03.2015)

¶20

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

The Branch Manager, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manikandan Vs the Inspector of Police

Mrs.M.Saroja Vs Mrs.S.Amali Arokia Marry

N.Eswaramoorthy Vs Vennilamani

Raja Vs Inspector of Police

Pavun Kumar Vs State Rep by

Nataraj, Vs the Deputy Superintendent of