Disposed

S.Suguna v. State by

Madras HC4 Feb 2016CRL OP/1113/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal original petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner sought a direction for the Police Commissioner to act on her representation alleging trespass and threats by police subordinates. The Court directed the Assistant Commissioner to inquire into the allegations and pass appropriate orders within four weeks before disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Assistant Commissioner to enquire into the allegations and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

S.Suguna Vs State by — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.02.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.O.P.No.1113 of 2016

S.Suguna

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.State by
The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City, Salem District.
2.Nagaraj
Inspector of Police,
Annapet, Salem District. .. Respondents
Prayer:-Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., directing the first respondent to consider the
representation of the petitioner dated 24.12.2015 in accordance with
law to secure the ends of justice.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor (For R1) ORDER

¶10

The petitioner has come forward with this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking for direction, directing the first respondent to consider the representation dated 24.12.2015 in accordance with law.

¶11

2.Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side.

¶12

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's husband is bedridden and he was maintained by his elder brother. The petitioner is having 1-3/4 year old child. He would submit that the second respondent is demanding money from her husband and threatening to detain him under Tamil Nadu Act 14/82. On 07.12.2015, when the petitioner was feeding her child, the second respondent and eight others trespassed into the house of the petitioner and demanded money and abused her. Hence, she was constrained to file a complaint before the first respondent. But the first respondent has not taken any steps. Hence, he has filed this

¶13

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

¶14

petition to consider the representation given by the petitioner on 24.12.2015.

¶15

4.Resisting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner's husband has already involved in four cases and his name has been mentioned as history sheeted rowdy. So, it is the duty of the Police to monitor the activities of the petitioner's husband and because of that only, the second respondent went to the house of the petitioner.

¶16

5.Considering the submission made on both sides and considering the fact that the petitioner has made some allegation against the subordinates of the respondent police, the Assistant Commissioner, Salem is directed to enquire the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

6.The Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the above
direction.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
cse
Note: The Registry is directed to issue a copy of this
order to the Assistant Commissioner, Salem.
To
1.The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City, Salem District.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Salem.
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, Advocate Sr.7831
Crl.O.P.No.1113 of 2016
MSM(CO)
RVR 15/02/2016

¶18

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

S.Suguna v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Suguna v. State by

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

T.Muthu Krishnan Vs the Inspector of Police

K.S.Subramanian Vs the Superintendent of Police

S. Munirathinam Vs the State by Inspector of

Amul Raj Vs the State Rep. by

N.Thirunavukkarasu Vs the State Rep. by

D.Murugesan Vs the Inspector of Police