Partly allowed

K.Rubeena Tazeen v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC5 Mar 2015CRL OP/867/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge ordered quashing of notices issued by police against petitioners in high court criminal original petitions. Court held that the underlying complaint did not disclose any criminal offence and notices were improperly issued under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petitions allowing the quashings of the impugned police notices dated 2.1.2015.

K.Rubeena Tazeen Vs the Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2015) — LawSathi Research

¶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.Nos.867, 982 and 983 of 2015

¶6

and M.P.Nos.1,1,1 of 2015

¶7

K.Rubeena Tazeen ...Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.867/2015 Mr.V.Mohamed Shafiyullah ...Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.982/2015 K.Rizwana Begum ...Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.983/2015

¶8

vs.

¶9

The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Tiruvellore Tiruvellore District.

¶10

...Respondent in all Crl.O.Ps.

¶11

Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records of the respondent's notice dated 2.1.2015 comprised in G.D.P/715/S.P./TLR/14 dated 17.11.2014 in C.No.38/DSP/DCB/TLR/14 dated 17.11.2014 and to quash the same insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

¶12

For Petitioners: Mr.M.N.S.Mohamed Habeeb Raja For Respondent : Mr.M.Maharaja Additional Public Prosecutor C O M M O N O R D E R

¶13

The petitioners challenge the notices issued by the respondent police directing the petitioners to appear before the respondent for enquiry on the complaint given by E.D.Shashi Kumar.

¶14

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor was directed to produce the copy of the complaint given by E.D.Shashi Kumar and a perusal of the complaint dated 17.11.2014 does not reveal any criminal offence. According to me, in the complaint dated 17.11.2014 given by E.D.Shashi Kumar, it is only stated that the petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.867 and 983 of 2015, namely K.Rubeena Tazeen and K.Rizwana Begaum borrowed Rs.25 lakhs in five instalments and committed default in repayment of the amounts and later they issued a cheque dated 01.09.2014 for a sum of Rs.25 lakhs and that was

¶15

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

¶16

returned with an endorsement “Account Closed” when sent for collection. As the complaint does not disclose any criminal offence, the respondent is not justified in directing the petitioners to appear before the respondent police in connection with the complaint given by E.D.Shashi Kumar.

¶17

Hence, all these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed and the respondent's notice dated 2.1.2015 comprised in G.D.P/715/S.P./TLR/14 dated 17.11.2014 in C.No.38/DSP/DCB/TLR/14 dated 17.11.2014 are quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶18

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
Dated:13.3.15
True Copy
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,Tiruvallur,
Tiruvallur District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1 cc to Mr.Mohammed Habeeb Raja, Advocate,SR.12531.
kgk(co)
krd 18/3
Crl.O.P.Nos.867, 982
and 983 of 2015

¶19

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

K.Rubeena Tazeen v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Rubeena Tazeen 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

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

Dr.R.Banumathi Vs the Inspector of Police (Crime