Disposed

Aruna, Aged 30 Years, v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC2 Dec 2016CRL OP/26084/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras disposed of criminal original petitions filed by victims alleging police harassment. The court directed the police to proceed with available records or file a final report instead of summoning victims for records, noting the victims felt the requests were harassment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the police to proceed further with investigation with the available records and file the final report instead of summoning the petitioners for records.

Aruna, Aged 30 Years, Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 02.12.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

CRL.OP.Nos.26084 to 26087 of 2016

¶6

Aruna .. Petitioner (in Crl.OP.No.26084 of 2016) G.Geetha .. Petitioner (in Crl.OP.No.26085 of 2016) Ms.Ligoriya .. Petitioner (in Crl.OP.No.26086 of 2016) J.Vijaya .. Petitioner (in Crl.OP.No.26087 of 2016) Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nady Rep. by The Superintendent of Police EOW - Team II Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police EOW - Team II Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040. 3.I.P.Yesudoss Founder - APHRO trust. 4.M/s.I.P.E.E. Enterprises Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.I.P.Yesudoss. 5.M/s.Aphro Trust Rep. by its Proprietor I.P.yesudoss 6.Chennai Manakaratchi Reporter Rep. by its Proprietor 7.Mrs.Devi ..Respondents

¶7

(in Crl.OP.Nos.26084 to 26087 of 2016)

¶8

Criminal Original Petition Crl.OP.No.26084 of 2016 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the respondent police not to harass the petitioners in Crime No.403/2012 by compelling https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ her to file a fresh claim petition once again before the

¶9

respondent for disbursement of amounts to the victim.

¶10

Criminal Original Petition Crl.OP.No.26085 of 2016 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the respondent police not to harass the petitioners in Crime No.437/2012 by compelling her to file a fresh claim petition once again before the respondent for disbursement of amounts to the victim.

¶11

Criminal Original Petition Crl.OP.No.26086 of 2016 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the respondent police not to harass the petitioners in Crime No.446/2012 by compelling her to file a fresh claim petition once again before the respondent for disbursement of amounts to the victim.

¶12

Criminal Original Petition Crl.OP.No.26087 of 2016 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the respondent police not to harass the petitioners in Crime No.531/2012 by compelling her to file a fresh claim petition once again before the respondent for disbursement of amounts to the victim.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj

¶14

These criminal original petitions have been filed to direct the respondent police not to harass the petitioners in Crime Nos. 403/2012, 437/2012, 446/2012 and 531/2012 by compelling them to file a fresh claim petition once again before the respondent for disbursement of amounts to them.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st & 2nd respondents.

¶16

Today, Mr.Senthilkumar, Inspector of Police, L&O, Chennai is present.

¶17

The petitioners are victims in the cases registered, that are being investigated by the respondent police in Crime Nos.403/2012, 437/2012, 446/2012 and 531/2012 . It is the case of the petitioners that they are agents and group leaders having been cheated by one I.P.Yesudoss, by collecting money from various persons and promised to given them loans.

¶18

The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that under the guise of the enquiry, the police are harassing them.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that

¶20

the police needed some materials without which they cannot complete the charge sheet and that is why, they are asking the victims to co-operate with them.

¶21

If the petitioners, who are victims feel that asking for records is harassment by police, then the police may proceed further with the investigation with the available records and file the final report before the concerned Court instead of summoning the petitioners for records. A copy of this order may also be filed along with the final report.

¶22

With the above direction, these petitions are closed.

¶23

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mk
To
1. The Superintendent of Police
EOW - Team II
Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police
EOW - Team II
Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.

¶24

+1cc to Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Advocate, S.R.No.71435

¶25

CRL.OP.Nos.26084 to 26087 of 2016

¶26

(CO) CS(21/12/2016)

¶27

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

Aruna, Aged 30 Years, v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aruna, Aged 30 Years, v. the State of Tamilnadu

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

Senthil Nathan Vs Kavipriya

Bhavani Vs S.Revathy

P.Malar Vs the District Suprendent of

H.Arumugam Vs The Joint Director

P.Iyyanar Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Aruna, Aged 30 Years, Vs the State of Tamilnadu