Dismissed

M.Murali v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC23 Jul 2015CRL OP(MD)/12577/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a Criminal Original Petition for police protection and to stop interference while running a night tiffin stall. The court heard counsel for all parties and rejected the claim that the private respondents were interfering, disposing of the petition while directing authorities to implement the prior order in a connected writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition is disposed of; no specific relief granted against respondents, affirming the status quo regarding interference while noting the existing writ order.

M.Murali Vs the Commissioner of Police — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.07.2015

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12577 of 2015

¶7

M.Murali ... Petitioner Vs.

¶8

The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

¶9

The Inspector of Police (Crime), Tallakulam Police Station, Madurai.

¶10

3.Ravichandran

¶11

4.Gowri Lakshmi ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct respondents 1&2 to give Police protection to the petitioner and to run the petitioner's shop without any disturbance from the 3^rd & 4^th respondent's atrocities and offences.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Santha Kumaresan For Respondents - 1&2 : Mr.K.Anbarasan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Respondents - 3&4 : Mr. S.Senthil Dharmarajan

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Both the petitioner and the private respondents namely R3 and R4 are running night tiffin stalls. Alleging that R3 and R4 are interfering with the running of the said stall belonging to the petitioner, the present petition has been filed.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the third and fourth respondents and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first and second respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶17

It appears that an order was passed by this court in W.P.(MD). No.9607 of 2013 dated 07.04.2014 by which direction was issued to the official respondents therein to take proper steps to remove the encroachment. The learned counsel for the third and fourth respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submitted that these respondents are not interfering with the running of the stall by the petitioner.

¶18

¶19

Recording the statement made by the learned counsel for the

¶20

third and fourth respondent, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. However, the order will not stand in the way of proper authorities, the action taken or to be taken in accordance with law to the order passed by this court in this W.P.(MD).No.9607 of 2013.

¶21

Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side)

¶22

/TRUE COPY/

¶23

¶24

The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

¶25

The Inspector of Police (Crime), Tallakulam Police Station, Madurai.

¶26

The Additional Public Prosecutor,

¶27

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶28

+1 CC TO MR.V.SHANTHAKUMARESAN , ADVOCATE, SR NO:40739 +1 CC TO MR.D.SENTHIL DHARMARAJAN, ADVOCATE SR NO:40946

¶29

PJL

¶30

JAM/7.8.15/2P-6C

¶31

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12577 of 2015 23.07.2015

¶32

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

M.Murali v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Murali 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

S. Vellangkanni, Vs the Superintendent

David Raj Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Senthilkumaran Vs the Deputy Superintendent

K.Muniyandisamy, Vs the Inspector of Police

Veeraiah Vs the Superintendent of Police

Balasubramani Nadar Vs the Superintendent of Police