Dismissed

R.Sumathi v. Sampath

Madras HC12 Sept 2016CONT P/1304/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition, the petitioner challenged the respondent Inspector of Police for allegedly non-compliance with a dated 24.06.2013 High Court order to conduct an inquiry and register a case if a cognizable offence was made out. The respondent submitted that an inquiry was conducted and the complaint was closed as no offence was found. The court observed that the order was complied with a

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition closed.

R.Sumathi Vs Sampath — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.09.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

Contempt Petition No.1304 of 2015

¶6

R.Sumathi ... Petitioner vs. Sampath, The Inspector of Police, Law and Order, T-13 Kundrathur Police Station, Kundrathur, Kancheepuram District. ... Respondent

¶7

Contempt petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondent for having committed contempt of the order dated 24.06.2013 in Crl.O.P.No.15858 of 2013 by this Court.

¶8

For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondent : Mr.K.Mathan, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶9

ORDER

¶10

there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

¶11

This Court, by an order dated 24.6.2013 in

¶12

Crl.O.P.No.15858 of 2013, directed the respondent herein to

¶13

conduct an enquiry in CSR No.191 of 2013 and if a

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cognizable offence was made out, he was directed to

¶15

¶16

¶17

Further, the respondent was directed to complete the process as early as possible, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Alleging that the said order has not been complied with, the present contempt petition has been filed.

¶18

appearing for the respondent submitted that pursuant to the direction given by this Court, an enquiry was conducted in CSR No.191 of 2013 and since no cognizable offence was made out, the said complaint was closed.

¶19

complied with, I am of the opinion, nothing survives in

¶20

this contempt petition and hence, the contempt petition is closed. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved over the

¶21

closure report, she is at liberty to challenge the same in the manner known to law, if she is so aggrieved.

¶22

sbi

¶23

//Certified to be true copy//

¶24

Dated at Madras this the day of 2016.

¶25

COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ format.

¶26

¶27

¶28

1.The Inspector of Police, Law and Order, T-13 Kundrathur Police Station, Kundrathur, Kancheepuram District.

¶29

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras – 104.

¶30

SS/CO/27/09/2016

¶31

One CC to Mr.S.Arunachalam, Advocate, SR.11743/2016

¶32

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

R.Sumathi v. Sampath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Sumathi v. Sampath

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.Pushpa Rani Vs Dr.R.Meera

G.Selvakumaran Vs The Commissioner/Director of

V.Venkatrao, Vs Tmt.M.Padmaja

J.Vijayakumar, Vs The State of Tamilnadu

S.Dhanalakshmi Vs Government of Tamilnadu

P.Gunasekaran Vs The Superintending Engineer