Disposed

R.S. Rajashekar, v. State Rep. by Its the Deputy

Madras HC23 Jun 2016CRL OP/13091/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal original petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner sought police protection and action to execute an order restoring water connection. The court directed the petitioner to lodge a fresh complaint with the police and issued a stay-like direction for protection of workers and the petitioner during the ensuing enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to lodge a fresh complaint with the respondent police along with the order; on receipt, police to investigate and afford necessary protection.

R.S. Rajashekar, Vs State Rep. by Its the Deputy — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 23.06.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.13091 of 2016

R.S.Rajashekar

.. Petitioner

State rep by its 1.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, E-1, Mylapore Police Station, Mylapore, Chennai-4.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police, E-5 Pattinapakkam Police Station, Chennai. .. Respondents

¶11

Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the respondents to take action and to provide adequate police protection to install the electric motor pump in the premises at Old No. 24, New No.53, Lazarus Church Road, Mandavelipakkam, Chennai-28 in the light of the order dated 10.06.2016 made in M.P.No.210/2016 in RCOP No.401/2016 passed by the Hon'ble XVI Special Causes Court, Chennai on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 18.06.2016.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.A.Muthalakan

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias, APP

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to take action and to provide adequate police protection on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 18.06.2016.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record.

¶17

It is the case of the petitioner that he had lodged a complaint against his landlady K.Mala and others, in respect of a residential portion at Lazarus Church Road, Mandavelipakkam, Chennai-28 and then, the landlady had cut the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ basic amenities, namely, electricity and water. Therefore,

¶18

the petitioner filed RCOP.No.401 of 2016 and in MP.No.210 of 2016, the learned XVI Judge, Small Causes Court [Rent Controller] has passed an order directing the landlady to restore water connection.

¶19

The petitioner is also ready and willing to have the water connection restored at his cost and that the landlady is preventing the petitioner from getting water connection by obstructing his workers. In this regard, the petitioner has given a complaint dated 18.06.2016 to the 2^nd respondent.

¶20

Under such circumstances, the petitioner is directed to go in-person and lodge a fresh complaint to the 2^nd respondent along with this order and on such complaint being given, the same shall be enquired into in accordance with law and necessary protection should be afford to the petitioner for executing the orders of the Court.

¶21

With the above direction, this petition is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gya To 1.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, E-1, Mylapore Police Station, Mylapore, Chennai-4. 2.The Inspector of Police, E-5 Pattinapakkam Police Station, Chennai. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 1 cc to Mr.M.A.Muthalakan, Advocate, sr.34876 CRL.O.P.No.13091 of 2016 sks co kra 24.06.2016

¶22

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

R.S. Rajashekar, v. State Rep. by Its the Deputy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.S. Rajashekar, v. State Rep. by Its the Deputy

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

Murugesan Vs the Inspector of Police

Neelamegam Vs State Rep. by

D.Kannan Vs the Inspector of Police

N.Kausalya Vs The Commissioner of Police

D. Sadeesh Kumar, Vs G.K. Seenu, S/O. G.A. Kutty

Mathivathana, Vs State Rep. by Inspector of