U.Vivekanandan v. Mr.Michael Royappan
Case brief
What is this about?
In a contempt petition, the Court examined whether the respondent's initial non-compliance with an order was still punishable after the matter was compromised. The Court held that since the police enquiry under the challenged order was completed and closed due to the parties undertaking to settle their dispute before the Family Court, nothing spoiled in the continuation of the petition. Consequent
What did the court decide?
Petitioner granted liberty to approach the court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.; Contempt petition closed.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.09.2016
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
Contempt Petition No.2118 of 2016 in
Crl.O.P.No.29984 of 2015
U.Vivekanandan ... Petitioner
Vs.
Michael Royappan The Inspector of Police, P3 Police Station,
Vyasarpadi, Chennai - 600 039. ... Respondent
Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondent herein for committing contempt of the order dated 17.12.2015 in Crl.OP.No.29984 of 2015.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order directing police to conduct an enquiry can be set aside if the enquiry has been completed and closed on an undertaking to settle the dispute.
Whether the petitioner can be granted liberty to approach the court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Whether the contempt petition remains worthwhile for hearing post-enquiry closure and settlement of dispute.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
U.Vivekanandan
- respondent
Michael Royappan Inspector of Police
Coram
R.Subbiah
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court