Allowed

M/S Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC18 Feb 2015CRL OP/650/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed criminal original petitions filed by Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited under Section 482 CrPC, directing police authorities to provide effective protection to the company to erect transmission towers at specified properties in Mayiladuthurai and Nagapattinam, subject to verification of the lease agreement.

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondents to provide effective police protection to the petitioner's company to erect transmission towers at the specified properties.

M/S Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. Vs the Inspector of… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 18.02.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

Crl.O.P.Nos.650 to 652 of 2015

¶6

M/s.Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited,

¶7

having its Circle Office at A1 Tower, 8^th Floor, 89-90, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,

¶8

Mylapore, Chennai 600 004, represented by its Legal Manager,

¶9

D.kalaimanai ... Petitioner vs

¶10

The Inspector of Police,

¶11

Mayiladuthurai Police Station, Mayiladuthurai.

¶12

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam District.

¶13

The Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam District. ... Respondents

¶14

Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to direct the respondents herein to provide the effective police protection to the petitioner's company to erect transmission tower at Old No.15 & New Door No.17, Parimala Ranganathan Koil Sannathi Street, Thiruvilanthur, Mayiladuthurai 609 001; Door No.1/88, No.77, Nallathukudi Village, Perumal Koil Street, Survey No.8/2B, Mayiladuthurai and Old No.77-64, New No.2/305/A, North Main Road, Akkarapettei, Nagapattinam District respectively.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.Karthick

¶16

for K.Govindarajan

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.Shanmugavelayutham, P.P. Assisted by Mr.V.M.R.Rajendran Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶18

These petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to direct the respondents to provide the effective police protection to the petitioner's company to erect transmission towers.

¶19

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

¶20

2.It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though the petitioner claimed to have entered into a lease agreement with the owners of the property to erect cellphone towers, the police received various complaints from the public and therefore, the police protection cannot be granted.

¶21

The submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor cannot be accepted. The petitioner entered into a lease agreement with the owners of the property for erection of cellphone towers and hence they are entitled to enter into that property and erect towers. However, it is open to the police to verify whether the petitioner''s company has got right to erect cellphone towers by virtue of the lease agreement .

¶22

With the above observation, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed, the respondents are directed to give police protection on being satisfied with the legal right of the petitioner's company to erect cellphone towers in those property.

¶23

Sd/Asst. Registrar /true copy/ KKK Sub Asst. Registrar. To 1. The Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai Police Station, Mayiladuthurai.

¶24

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam District.

¶25

The Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam District.

¶26

+1cc to Mr.K.Govindarajan, Advocate, S.R.No.8891,8889,8890

¶27

+1cc to the Public Prosecutor, S.R.No.9073,9074

¶28

Crl.O.P.Nos.650 to 652 of 2015 ACA(CO) CA(05/03/2015)

¶29

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

M/S Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. 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

Uma Lurdumary F/a 30 Yrs Vs State Rep by

G.Ramireddy Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Mallika F/a 57 Yrs Vs State Rep by

M.Jaganathan Vs Emmars Trading Corp

B.Rajesh Kannan Vs the Commissioner of Police

M/S Reliance Jio Infocomm Vs the Inspector of Police