Dismissed

J.Jonbosco @ Jegan v. Venkatesan

Madras HC9 Aug 2016CONT P/1491/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Madras dismissed a Contempt Petition filed to punish an Inspector of Police for willful disobedience of a prior order directing the filing of a fresh complaint. The court held there were no prima facie materials to issue a statutory notice as the petitioner failed to establish non-compliance.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was dismissed; no statutory notice was issued.

J.Jonbosco @ Jegan Vs Venkatesan — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 09.08.2016

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶6

Cont.P.No.1491 of 2016

¶7

J.Johnbosco @ Jegan ... Petitioner
Vs
Venkatesan,
Inspector of Police,
South Police Station,
Vandavasi (Town),
T.V Malai District.
... Respondent
Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Sections 11 of
Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondent for
willful disobedience of the order passed in
Crl.O.P.No.20061 of 2015 dated 01.09.2015.
For Petitioner :Mr.A.Indiyan
For Respondents :Mr.C.Emalias
Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER

¶8

This Contempt Petition has been filed to punish the respondent for willful disobedience of the order passed in Crl.O.P.No.20061 of 2015 dated 01.09.2015.

¶9

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶10

petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

¶11

It is seen that in Crl.O.P.No.20061 of 2015 dated

¶12

19.02.2015, this Court passed the following order;

¶13

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

¶14

“The learned Additional Public

¶15

¶16

Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has sent a compliant dated 21.07.2015 by post to the respondents. The petitioner is directed to go in person and give a complaint to the third respondent and on such complaint being given, the same shall be enquired into in accordance with law, following the decision laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of Uttarpradesh and others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1.”

¶17

In Para -3 of the petitioner's affidavit, he has stated as follows;

¶18

“I further state that I have

¶19

submitted the above certified copy of the order in person before the District Crime Branch, Thiruvannamalai, as early as in the 1^st week of October 2015 and thereafter the Police officials have informed me that I will be sent with summons soon and while I can appear before them, etc.”

¶20

From the above, it is seen that the petitioner

¶21

has not even stated the date on which, he went to the Police Station in person to give a fresh compliant as directed by this Court. On the contrary, in Page No.15 of

¶22

the typed set of papers, the petitioner has kept the copy of the representation dated 15.03.2016, which also does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence.

¶23

Even according to the petitioner, he had https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

received the post card on 08.12.2015, in which, he was

¶25

¶26

asked to appear on 05.12.2015. In other words, according to him, he has received the post card only on 08.12.2015 and therefore, he could not have been able to appear on an earlier date i.e. 05.12.2015. Be that as it may, even according to him, that post card given was meant only on

¶27

for earlier complaint dated 21.07.2015.

¶28

Under such circumstances, this Court does not
find any prima facie materials even to issue a statutory
notice in this case. Hence, the contempt petition is
dismissed.
ub/sms
SD/
JOINT REGISTRAR(OS)
//Certified to be true copy//
Dated at Madras this the day of 2016.

¶29

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

¶30

JM/CO/22/08/2016 One CC to A.Indiyan, SR.9847/2016 To Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Vandavasi (Town), T.V Malai District.

¶31

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

J.Jonbosco @ Jegan v. Venkatesan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Jonbosco @ Jegan v. Venkatesan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Ravishankar, Aged 40 Years Vs the Inspector of Police

Mrs. M. Srikala, Age 40 Years, Vs State Rep. by Inspector of

Velmurugan Vs State Rep. by

T.Ramesh Vs The State of Tamilnadu

P.Selvaraj Vs The Commissioner of Police

Hippolistes Fernando Vs Ramesh Kumar