Dismissed

K.Mathanraj v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC21 Jul 2015CRL OP(MD)/12169/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Original Petition, the petitioner, a lawyer, alleged ill-treatment by the Superintendent of Police. The Court noted a counter-affidavit denied the allegations but did not examine the merits. The petition was dismissed as the aggrieved party could pursue remedies known to law.

What did the court decide?

None granted; the petitioner is advised to work out remedy in manner known to law.

K.Mathanraj Vs the Commissioner of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.07.2015

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12169 of 2015

¶7

K.Mathanraj ... Petitioner Vs.

¶8

The commissioner of Police, City Commissioner, Trichy City.

¶9

The Inspector of Police, K.K.Nagar Police Station,

¶10

Trichy. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code

¶12

of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the respondents to register the complaint dated 23.06.2015.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Kalyan Kishen Singh

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.K.Anbarasan

¶15

Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶16

The petitioner is a practising lawyer and he gave a compliant on 23.06.2015 alleging that he has been ill-treated by the Superintendent of Police, Trichy District. As the said compliant has not been taken into consideration, the present petition has been filed.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

¶18

Considering the submissions made, this court already directed the Superintendent of Police, Trichy to file a counter affidavit. Accordingly, a counter affidavit has been filed by the Superintendent of Police, Trichy stating that the petitioner was not ill-treated. In the counter affidavit, the occurrence made in the petitioner's complaint are not denied. It has been further stated that the dispute between the petitioner's client one S. Anushya and another Kalpana has been settled. The petitioner's client has also stated that no such occurrence, as alleged by the petitioner has taken place.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

Considering the above, this court is not willing to go into the

¶22

allegation and denial. If the petitioner is aggrieved, he can work out the remedy in the manner known to law.

¶23

However, the Superintendent of Police, Trichy District is advised

¶24

to avoid any possible friction between the lawyers and the police in discharge of their lawful duties.

¶25

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the above direction.

/True Copy/

PJL

The commissioner of Police, City Commissioner, Trichy City.

¶30

The Inspector of Police, K.K.Nagar Police Station, Trichy.

¶31

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶32

The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District

¶33

+1cc to Mr.S.Shakespeare, Advocate in Sr.No.39756

¶34

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12169 of 2015

¶35

21.07.2015

¶36

Sk/29.07.2015/2p/5c

¶37

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

K.Mathanraj v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Mathanraj 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

Saraswathi Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

S. Krishnakumar Vs the Superintendent of Police

Anil Alias Beer Mohaideen Vs the Inspector of Police

Satham Hussain Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Chinnammal Vs the Superintendent of Police

Periyalwar Vs the Superintendent of Police